Unintended Consequences
Peter Leighton
Unintended, but foreseen by many of us....
BTW, the Post is a pro-war paper.
Peter
Delia
The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and
intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent
recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S.
national security officials told Congress yesterday.
"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new
anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence.
And the CIA Director is only now figuring this out.
--
Delia
Peter Leighton
"SilkUpholsteredChair" <trea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108698565....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> magazine points out. BTW, the writer is not pro-Bush or pro-war.
No cheering here.
Peter
>
> http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/columns/imperialcity/11076/index.html
>
sand...@alltel.net
a label they embrace? I'm sure hundreds of folks (if not more) work
for the Washington Post. Is it just the top brass who are pro-war? If
so, who are they? Or is it a just a majority of the folks who work
there? If it's a majority, is the majority 51% or 75%, etc. Are you
talking about their op-ed pages and/or do they slant the so-called
objective news? You can tell I'm skeptical of your blanket statement.
I'm not cynical--at least I'd like to think so--so I'd be open to any
evidence you've got.
Peter Leighton
<sand...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:1108704154.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'm sure there are a substantial number of employees who are anti-war,
but...
The editorials have consistently supported the invasion of Iraq (the
"war" I'm referring to - this wasn't meant to be more general than that).
I read them almost daily, and every one I have read on the subject
has been uncompromising in support of the war.
If the WP chose to slant a war story, it would do so in a pro-war direction.
That's all I meant.
Do you disagree?
Peter
davemh...@hotmail.com
Throw in a couple of hundred thousand tonnes of explosives, two million
or so disaffected Sunnis, untold numbers suffering Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder, a disbanded Army without a livliehood, a proud nation
without the artefacts of their nation, and you have a policy blunder of
incalcuable consequences.
Peter Leighton
> The Post's editorial position on the war was unexpectedly in favor,
> something that the chorus of conservative media bashers have in the
> main overlooked when they lump the Post together with the rest of the
> "liberal media."
The Post hasn't been liberal for years.
Peter
>
frinjdwelr
"Delia" <delia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108700492.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
liars, they're even worse...clueless.
what was that quote from Bob about knowing oneself and knowing one's enemy?
truer words have not been spoken.
Martin Grossman
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - As 55 people died in Iraq on
Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious
calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was
“functioning quite well” and that the rash of suicide
attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.
Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on
destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq’s
landmark Jan. 30 elections.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an
abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or
overrun,” Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected
Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings
surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the
Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy…
…The fact that you have these suicide bombers now,
wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to
me, an indication of their failure,” Clinton said.
When I returned from Iraq last September I concluded many
Americans were suffering a failure of faith. Perhaps the
emerging success in Iraq will restore their spirit.
Cross-Tie Walker
Agreed, and when you consider that the "policy blunder" was made on
lies,distortions and misinformation it kind of makes you wonder how the
people responsible are still in power.
CTW.
Cross-Tie Walker
As I said in a previous post, the people who led the illegal invasion
of Iraq are either liars on a grand scale or totally incompetent to
lead a nation...two choices..take your pick.
CTW.
Seth Kulick
: Add Hillary to the list of the clueless, I guess:
: BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - As 55 people died in Iraq on
: Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious
[...]
: When I returned from Iraq last September I concluded many
: Americans were suffering a failure of faith. Perhaps the
: emerging success in Iraq will restore their spirit.
Who is the "I" who "returned from Iraq September"? I don't think this is part
of the AP story. You should include the URL for the stuff you post.
Usually I can track it down via google but I didn't find it this time.
d
As far as I can tell the major media is doing what they always do
(and do it well) -- bringing people down, pissing them off,
frightening them -- by reporting the worst of what's happening in
Iraq (after they so solidly made sure we got there in the first
place and stayed there in the second place) -- they get both the
liberals and the conservatives upset w/the same stories. The
liberals are saying -- "See, Iraq isnt working. The Bush
Administration has truly made a mess of it." The conservatives
are saying "The media is liberal and biased. They arent reporting
the whole story."
The more liberal senators in Congress want the whole Iraw thing to
work out (even if it does make Bush look good) because the if it
doesnt -- they understand how dire the consequences will be.
Martin Grossman
originated here: http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=79
frinjdwelr
"d" <sweet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CR%Rd.1472$873...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> The more liberal senators in Congress want the whole Iraq thing to
> work out (even if it does make Bush look good) because the if it
> doesnt -- they understand how dire the consequences will be.
>
in chaos, violence or fundamentalist Islamic rule, are blinded by their
hatred of "lefties."
Those of us who were against the invasion of Iraq from the start did have a
clue, and we were right.
We're still right 860 Billion dollars later. It's blinkin' obvious. That
doesn't mean we don't cringe in horror with every deadly car bomb.
> > Martin Grossman (marting...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> > : Add Hillary to the list of the clueless, I guess:
You're being generous. I think Hilary is clueless about what she wants to
be clueless about. Mostly she says what people want to hear. She's first
and foremost a politician who's quick to endorse the white lie if she thinks
it will help her. That line about "55 people being killed today just shows
how desparate the insurgents are," has been the administration mantra for
over a year now. Only the daily number changes. It's silly and she's not
that stupid.
J Buck
Maybe not stupid, but her good judgement is up for debate.
Your Pal Brian
> Add Hillary to the list of the clueless, I guess:
>
> BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - As 55 people died in Iraq on
> Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious
> calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was
> “functioning quite well” and that the rash of suicide
> attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.
Hmmm. I must admit I found this article intriguing:
Report: U.S. in Secret Talks with Iraqi Insurgents
Sun Feb 20, 1:55 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers are conducting
secret talks with Iraq (news - web sites)'s Sunni insurgents on ways to end
fighting there, Time magazine reported on Sunday, citing Pentagon (news - web
sites) and other sources.
The Bush administration has said it would not negotiate with Iraqi fighters and
there is no authorized dialogue but the U.S. is having "back-channel"
communications with certain insurgents, unidentified Washington and Iraqi sources
told the magazine.
The magazine cited a secret meeting between two members of the U.S. military and
an Iraqi negotiator, a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein (news - web
sites)'s regime and the senior representative of what he called the nationalist
insurgency.
A U.S. officer tried to get names of other insurgent leaders while the Iraqi
complained the new Shi'ite-dominated government was being controlled by Iran,
according to an account of the meeting provided by the Iraqi negotiator.
"We are ready to work with you," the Iraqi negotiator said, according to Time.
Iraqi insurgent leaders not aligned with al Qaeda ally Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi told
the magazine several nationalist groups composed of what the Pentagon calls
"former regime elements" have become open to negotiating.
The insurgents said their aim was to establish a political identity that can
represent disenfranchised Sunnis.
The White House had no immediate comment on the report.
[SNIP]
Brian
Ken Wilson
> That's right. People who think being liberal means wanting Iraq to go
> down
> in chaos, violence or fundamentalist Islamic rule, are blinded by their
> hatred of "lefties."
Since I'm the one around here here employs the phrase "lefties," for the
record, that's not what I believe. I do believe that if things had gone
exactly according to plan the Left would still be critical. ;-)
> Those of us who were against the invasion of Iraq from the start did have
> a
> clue, and we were right.
Yes you were, and some of you had foresight. An awful lot of other people
just love to hate Bush.
Ken
J Buck
<People who think being liberal means wanting Iraq to go down in chaos,
violence or fundamentalist Islamic rule, are blinded by their hatred of
"lefties.">
People who think being conservative means wanting America to make every
country a capitalistic, democratic society under fundamentalist
Christian rule are blinded by their hatred of 'Bushies'.
Barney Lyon
This is one of the more interesting sites out there for understanding
what the Iraqis think and what's going on in Iraq:
Baghdad Burning
... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and
souls can mend...
Friday, February 18, 2005
Groceries and Election Results...
Yesterday, one of our neighbors stopped by the house. She was carrying
a hot plate of some green beans in a tomato sauce. "Abu Ammar has some
wonderful green beans," she confided. "But you have to tell him to give
you some of the ones he hides under the table- the ones on display are
a little bit chewy." I added green beans to the grocery list and headed
off with E. to Abu Ammar.
Our local grocer, Abu Ammar has a vegetable and fruit stand set up
about 400 m away from our house, on the main street. He has been there
for as long as anyone can remember and although you would not know it
to see him, Abu Ammar is quite the entrepreneur. He wears a traditional
dishdasha all year round and on cold days, a worn leather jacket and a
black wool cap he pulls down over his ears.
We, and almost every house on the street, buy our groceries from him.
He sets up his stand early in the morning and when you pass it by at
just the right time, there's a myriad of colors: the even brown of
potatoes, deep green of spinach, bright orange of citrus fruits and the
glossy red of sweet Iraqi tomatoes... And Abu Ammar is almost always
there- come rain or sun or war, sitting in the midst of his vegetables
and fruits, going through a newspaper, a cigarette in his mouth and
crackling out of his little transistor radio are the warm tones of
Fayrouz. On those rare occasions when Abu Ammar isn't there, you can
tell something is very wrong.
Abu Ammar sat there in his usual place. I could tell he was doing a
crossword today because he kept making marks on the newspaper. Abu
Ammar rose to greet us and handed me a few plastic bags so I could pick
and choose the vegetables I wanted. "I have some very good lemons
today," he declared, tucking the newspaper under his arm and pointing
to a pyramid of small greenish-yellow fruits. I wandered over to the
lemons and inspected them critically.
I feel like I have my finger on the throbbing pulse of the Iraqi
political situation every time I visit Abu Ammar. You can often tell
just how things are going in the country from the produce available at
his stand. For example, when he doesn't have any good tomatoes we
know that the roads to Basra are either closed or really bad and the
tomatoes aren't getting through to Baghdad. When citrus fruit isn't
available during the winter months, we know that the roads to Diyala
are probably risky and oranges and lemons couldn't be delivered.
He'll also give you the main news headlines he picks up from various
radio stations and if you feel so inclined, you can read the headlines
from any one of the assorted newspapers lying in a pile near his feet.
Plus, he has all of the neighborhood gossip.
"Did you know Abu Hamid's family are going to move?" He took a drag
from the cigarette and pointed with his ballpoint pen towards a house
about 100 m away from his stand.
"Really?" I asked, turning my attention to the tomatoes, "How did you
hear?"
"I saw them showing the house to a couple last week and then I saw them
showing it again this week... they're trying to sell it."
"Did you hear about the election results?" E. asked Abu Ammar. Abu
Ammar shook his head in the affirmative and squashed his cigarette with
a slippered foot. "Well, we were expecting it." He shrugged his
shoulders and continued, "Most Shia voted for list 169. They were
blaring it out at the Husseiniya near our house the night of the
elections. I was there for evening prayer." A Husseiniya is a sort of
mosque for Shia. We had heard that many of them were campaigning for
list 169- the Sistani-backed list.
I shook my head and sighed. "So do you still think the Americans want
to turn Iraq into another America? You said last year that if we gave
them a chance, Baghdad would look like New York." I said in reference
to a conversation we had last year. E. gave me a wary look and tried to
draw my attention to some onions, "Oh hey- look at the onions- do we
have onions?"
Abu Ammar shook his head and sighed, "Well if we're New York or
we're Baghdad or we're hell, it's not going to make a difference
to me. I'll still sell my vegetables here."
I nodded and handed over the bags to be weighed. "Well... they're
going to turn us into another Iran. You know list 169 means we might
turn into Iran." Abu Ammar pondered this a moment as he put the bags on
the old brass scale and adjusted the weights.
"And is Iran so bad?" He finally asked. Well no, Abu Ammar, I wanted to
answer, it's not bad for *you* - you're a man... if anything your
right to several temporary marriages, a few permanent ones and the
right to subdue females will increase. Why should it be so bad? Instead
I was silent. It's not a good thing to criticize Iran these days. I
numbly reached for the bags he handed me, trying to rise out of that
sinking feeling that overwhelmed me when the results were first made
public.
It's not about a Sunni government or a Shia government- it's about
the possibility of an Iranian-modeled Iraq. Many Shia are also appalled
with the results of the elections. There's talk of Sunnis being
marginalized by the elections but that isn't the situation. It's not
just Sunnis- it's moderate Shia and secular people in general who have
been marginalized.
The list is frightening- Da'awa, SCIRI, Chalabi, Hussein Shahristani
and a whole collection of pro-Iran political figures and clerics. They
are going to have a primary role in writing the new constitution.
There's talk of Shari'a, or Islamic law, having a very primary role
in the new constitution. The problem is, whose Shari'a? Shari'a for
many Shia differs from that of Sunni Shari'a. And what about all the
other religions? What about Christians and Mendiyeen?
Is anyone surprised that the same people who came along with the
Americans - the same puppets who all had a go at the presidency last
year - are the ones who came out on top in the elections? Jaffari,
Talbani, Barazani, Hakim, Allawi, Chalabi... exiles, convicted
criminals and war lords. Welcome to the new Iraq.
Ibraheim Al-Jaffari, the head of the pro-Iran Da'awa party gave an
interview the other day. He tried very hard to pretend he was
open-minded and that he wasn't going to turn the once-secular Iraq
into a fundamentalist Shia state but the fact of the matter remains
that he is the head of the Da'awa party. The same party that was
responsible for some of the most infamous explosions and assassinations
in Iraq during the last few decades. This is the same party that calls
for an Islamic Republic modeled like Iran. Most of its members have
spent a substantial amount of time in Iran.
Jaffari cannot separate himself from the ideology of his party.
Then there's Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). He got to be puppet president for
the month of December and what was the first thing he did? He decided
overburdened, indebted Iraq owed Iran 100 billion dollars. What was the
second thing he did? He tried to have the "personal status" laws that
protect individuals (and especially women) eradicated.
They try to give impressive interviews to western press but the
situation is wholly different on the inside. Women feel it the most.
There's an almost constant pressure in Baghdad from these parties for
women to cover up what little they have showing. There's a pressure
in many colleges for the segregation of males and females. There are
the threats, and the printed and verbal warnings, and sometimes we hear
of attacks or insults.
You feel it all around you. It begins slowly and almost insidiously.
You stop wearing slacks or jeans or skirts that show any leg because
you don't want to be stopped in the street and lectured by someone
who doesn't approve. You stop wearing short sleeves and start
preferring wider shirts with a collar that will cover up some of you
neck. You stop letting your hair flow because you don't want to
attract attention to it. On the days when you forget to pull it back
into a ponytail, you want to kick yourself and you rummage around in
your handbag trying to find a hair band... hell, a rubber band to pull
back your hair and make sure you attract less attention from *them*.
We were seriously discussing this situation the other day with a
friend. The subject of the veil and hijab came up and I confessed my
fear that while they might not make it a law, there would be enough
pressure to make it a requirement for women when they leave their
homes. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "Well women in Iran will
tell you it's not so bad- you know that they just throw something on
their heads and use makeup and go places, etc." True enough. But it
wasn't like that at the beginning. It took them over two decades to
be able to do that. In the eighties, women were hauled off the streets
and detained or beaten for the way they dressed.
It's also not about covering the hair. I have many relatives and
friends who wore a hijab before the war. It's the principle. It's
having so little freedom that even your wardrobe is dictated. And
wardrobe is just the tip of the iceberg. There are clerics and men who
believe women shouldn't be able to work or that they shouldn't be
allowed to do certain jobs or study in specific fields. Something that
disturbed me about the election forms was that it indicated whether the
voter was 'male' or 'female'- why should that matter? Could it be
because in Shari'a, a women's vote or voice counts for half of that of
a man? Will they implement that in the future?
Baghdad is once more shrouded in black. The buildings and even some of
the houses have large black pieces of cloth hanging upon them, as if
the whole city is mourning the election results. It's because of
"Ashoura" or the ten days marking the beginning of the Islamic New Year
but also marking the death of the Prophet's family 1400+ years ago in
what is now known as Karbala. That means there are droves of religious
Shia dressed in black from head to foot (sometimes with a touch of
green or red) walking in the streets and beating themselves with
special devices designed for this occasion.
We've been staying at home most of the time because it's not a good
idea to leave the house during these ten days. It took us an hour and
20 minutes to get to my aunt's house yesterday because so many
streets were closed with masses of men chanting and beating themselves.
To say it is frightening is an understatement. Some of the men are even
bleeding and they wear white to emphasize all the blood flowing down
backs and foreheads. It's painful to see small children wearing black
clothes and carrying miniature chains that really don't hurt, but look
so bizarre.
Quite frankly, it's disgusting. It's a quasi political show of
Sadomasochism that has nothing to do with religion. In Islam it's
unfavorable to hurt the human body. Moderate Shia also find it
appalling and slightly embarrassing. E. teases the Shia cousin
constantly, "So this your idea of a good time, ha?" But the cousin is
just is revolted, although he can't really express it. We're so
"free" now, it's not good idea to publicly express your distaste to
the whole bloody affair. I can, however, express it on my blog...
We've also heard of several more abductions and now assassinations.
They say Badir's Brigade have come out with a new list of
'wanted'... but dead, not alive. It's a list of mainly Sunni
professors, former army generals, doctors, etc. Already there have been
three assassinations in Saydiyeh, an area that is a mix of Sunnis and
Shia. They say Badir's Brigade people broke into the house and gunned
down the families. This assassination spree is, apparently, a
celebration of the election results.
It's interesting to watch American politicians talk about how
American troops are the one thing standing between Sunnis and Shia
killing each other in the streets. It looks more and more these days
like that's not true. Right now, during all these assassinations and
abductions, the troops are just standing aside and letting Iraqis get
at each other. Not only that, but the new army or the National Guard
are just around to protect American troops and squelch any resistance.
There was hope of a secular Iraq, even after the occupation. That hope
is fading fast.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
And Life Goes On...
The elections have come and gone. The day of elections was a day of
eerie silence punctuated by a few strong explosions and the hum of
helicopters above. We remained at home and watched the situation on tv.
E. left for about an hour to see what was happening at the local
polling area, which was a secondary school nearby. He said there were
maybe 50 people at the school and a lot of them looked like they were
involved with the local electoral committee. The polling station near
our house was actually being guarded by SCIRI people (Badir's
Brigade).
It was like an voting marathon for all of the news channels- everywhere
you turned there was news of the elections. CNN, Euronews, BBC,
Jazeera, Arabia, LBC... everyone was talking elections. The Arab news
channels were focusing largely on voting abroad while CNN kept showing
footage from the southern provinces and the northern ones.
I literally had chills going up and down my spine as I watched Abdul
Aziz Al Hakeem of Iranian-inclined SCIRI dropping his ballot into a
box. Behind him, giving moral support and her vote, was what I can only
guess to be his wife. She was shrouded literally from head to foot and
only her eyes peeped out of the endless sea of black. She stuffed her
ballot in the box with black-gloved hands and submissively followed a
very confident Hakeem. E. turned to me with a smile and a wink, "That
might be you in a couple of years..." I promptly threw a sofa cushion
at him.
Most of our acquaintances (Sunni and Shia) didn't vote. My cousin,
who is Shia, didn't vote because he felt he didn't really have
'representation' on the lists, as he called it. I laughed when he
said that, "But you have your pick of at least 40 different Shia
parties!" I teased, winking at his wife. I understood what he meant
though. He's a secular, educated, non-occupation Iraqi before he's
Sunni or Shia- he's more concerned with having someone who wants to
end the occupation than someone Shia.
We're hearing about various strange happenings at different voting
areas. They say that several areas in northern Iraq (some Assyrian and
other Christian areas) weren't allowed to vote. They also say that 300
different ballot boxes from all over the country were disqualified
(mainly from Mosul) because a large number of the vote ballots had
"Saddam" written on them. In other areas there's talk of Badir's
Brigade people having bought the ballots to vote, and while the people
of Falloojeh weren't allowed to vote, people say that the identities of
Falloojans were temporarily 'borrowed' for voting purposes. The stories
are endless.
In spite of that, we're all watching for the results carefully. When
the 'elected' government takes control, will they set a timetable
for American withdrawal? That would be a shocker considering none of
the current parties would be able to remain in power without being
forcefully backed by America with tanks and troops. We hear American
politicians repeatedly saying that America will not withdraw until Iraq
can secure itself. When will that happen? Our current National Guard or
"Haress il Watani" are fondly called "Haress il Wathani" or "Infidel
Guard" by people in the streets. On top of it all, to be one of them is
considered such a disgrace by the general population that they have to
wear masks so that none of them can be identified by neighbors and
friends.
The results won't really matter when so many people boycotted the
elections. No matter what the number say, the reality of the situation
is that there are millions of Iraqis who will refuse to submit to an
occupation government. After almost two years of occupation, and
miserable living conditions, we want our country back.
I do have my moments of weakness though, when I wonder who will be
allowed to have power. Politicians are talking about a balance that
might arise from a Shia, Kurdish alliance and it makes a lot of sense
in theory. In theory, the Kurdish leaders are Sunni and secular and the
Shia leaders are, well, they're not exactly secular. If they get
along, things should work out evenly. That looks good on blogs and on
paper. Reality is quite different. Reality is that the Kurdish leaders
are more concerned about their own autonomy and as long as the Kurdish
north remains secular, the rest of Iraq can go up in flames.
An example is the situation in Baghdad today. The parties that have
power in colleges today are actually the Iranian inclined Shia parties
like Da'awa and SCIRI. Student representatives in colleges and
universities these days mainly come from the abovementioned parties.
They harass Christian and Muslim girls about what they should and
shouldn't wear. They invite students to attend "latmiyas" (mainly
Shia religious festivities where the participants cry and beat
themselves in sorrow over the killing of the Prophet's family) and
bully the cafeteria or canteen guy into not playing music during
Ramadhan and instead showing the aforementioned latmiyas and Shia
religious lectures by Ayatollah So-and-So and Sayid
Something-or-Another.
Last week my cousin needed to visit the current Ministry of Higher
Education. After the ministry building was burned and looted, the
employees had to be transferred to a much, much smaller building in
another part of the city. My cousin's wife wanted to have her college
degree legalized by the ministry and my cousin wasn't sure about how
to go about doing it. So I volunteered to go along with him because I
had some questions of my own.
We headed for the building containing the ministry employees (but
hardly ever containing the minister). It was small and cramped. Every 8
employees were stuck in the same room. The air was tense and heavy. We
were greeted in the reception area by a bearded man who scanned us
disapprovingly. "Da'awachi," my cousin whispered under his breath,
indicating the man was from the Da'awa Party. What could he do for
us? Who did we want? We wanted to have some documents legalized by the
ministry, I said loudly, trying to cover up my nervousness. He looked
at me momentarily and then turned to the cousin pointedly. My cousin
repeated why we were there and asked for directions. We were told to go
to one of the rooms on the same floor and begin there.
"Please dress appropriately next time you come here." The man said to
me. I looked down at what I was wearing- black pants, a beige
high-necked sweater and a knee-length black coat. Huh? I blushed
furiously. He meant my head should be covered and I should be wearing a
skirt. I don't like being told what to wear and what not to wear by
strange men. "I don't work here- I don't have to follow a dress
code." I answered coldly. The cousin didn't like where the
conversation was going, he angrily interceded, "We're only here for
an hour and it really isn't your business."
"It is my business." Came the answer, "She should have some respect for
the people who work here." And the conversation ended. I looked around
for the people I should be respecting. There were three or four women
who were apparently ministry employees. Two of them were wearing long
skirts, loose sweaters and headscarves and the third had gone all out
and was wearing a complete "jubba" or robe-like garb topped with a
black head scarf. My cousin and I turned to enter the room the
receptionist had indicated and my eyes were stinging. No one could talk
that way before the war and if they did, you didn't have to listen.
You could answer back. Now, you only answer back and make it an issue
if you have some sort of death wish or just really, really like
trouble.
Young females have the option of either just giving in to the pressure
and dressing and acting 'safely'- which means making everything longer
and looser and preferably covering some of their head or constantly
being defiant to what is becoming endemic in Iraq today. The problem
with defiance is that it doesn't just involve you personally, it
involves anyone with you at that moment- usually a male relative. It
means that there might be an exchange of ugly words or a fight and
probably, after that, a detention in Abu Ghraib.
If it's like this in Baghdad, I shudder to think what the other
cities and provinces must be like. The Allawis and Pachichis of Iraq
don't sense it- their families are safely tucked away in Dubai and
Amman, and the Hakeems and Jaffaris of Iraq promote it.
At the end of the day, it's not about having a Sunni or Shia or Kurd
or Arab in power. It's about having someone who has Iraq's best
interests at heart- not America's, not Iran's, not Israel's...
It's about needing someone who wants peace, prosperity, independence
and above and beyond all, unity.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Water Anxiety...
I have to make this fast. We have about two hours of electricity-
hopefully. The water came back yesterday evening. It's just a little
drizzle but it's certainly better than nothing.
E. was the first to hear it. We were sitting in the living room and he
suddenly jumped up, alert, "Do you hear that?" He asked. I strained my
ears for either the sound of a plane or helicopter or gun shots.
Nothing... except, wait... something... like a small stream of...
water? Could it be? Was it back? We both ran into the bathroom where we
had the faucets turned on for the last eight days in anticipation of
water. Sure enough, there it was- a little stream of water that kept
coming and going as if undecided. E. and I did a little victory dance
in front of the sink with some celebratory hoots and clapping.
This was followed by a lot of work. We spent the rest of the evening
filling anything that was fillable- pots, pans, cups, bottles and
buckets. The formerly empty area under the staircase is now filled with
big pots of water covered with trays and mismatching pot covers to keep
out stray bugs and dust.
I almost didn't sleep last night. I kept worrying the water would be
cut off again. I actually crept downstairs at 4 a.m. to see if it was
still there and found E. standing in the bathroom doorway doing the
same. My mother is calling the syndrome "water anxiety". We were hoping
the flow would grow stronger at night but apparently the water pressure
is really low. E. and I rose early this morning because we decided last
night that should the water continue to flow, we'd attempt to fill up
the big water tank on the roof. The water from this tank goes directly
to the electric water heater but since we haven't been using that for a
while now, we decided to close up the tank and use it as a sort of
secondary storage. We cannot get caught off-guard again. Drinking water
rose to almost 1,000 Dinars a liter this last week.
E. and I spent the day carrying up buckets of water. The water flow is
so weak, it takes about 17 minutes to fill up a 10 liter plastic pail
(I was timing it). We've carried up about 10 buckets until now. The
water still doesn't reach the kitchen faucets so we've managed to move
the dirty dishes to the bathroom and are washing them there.
Unfortunately, the electricity situation has deteriorated. We're
getting about four hours for every twenty hours in our area- I'm not
quite sure what's going on in the other areas. It feels like we're
almost cut off from each other.
Baghdad has been unstable these last few days. We had several
explosions this last week and although the number of explosions wasn't
surprising, the force of a couple of them had us wincing. There's a
real fear of the coming elections and what they might bring. I don't
like the idea that they've selected schools as election sites. School
is out right now, but the security threat is obvious- elections sites
are most likely going to be bombed. Schools are having a difficult time
as it is getting things fixed and replaced, they don't need the added
trauma of an explosion. It's just a bad idea.
The curfew begins at six from now on and there's also a "driving
curfew" in addition to the ordinary one. I don't have the exact hours
but I know that during several hours of the day, it's ok to be on foot
but not ok to be in a car. I don't have the slightest idea how they're
going to enforce that one.
Ghazi Al Yawir, our alleged current president, was giving an interview
on LBC yesterday. Apparently, he and Allawi aren't on the same election
list anymore because they had a falling out as to who should head the
list. Ghazi proposed the president should be the head of the list and
Allawi claimed somebody Shia (Allawi himself) should head the list.
Now, Allawi's group is 285 on the election ballot and Yawir's group is
288, I think.
My favorite question during the interview was when the reporter asked
him what he thought of Chalabi possibly being arrested. Ghazi looked
flustered and a little bit unsure (apparently he hasn't been watching
CNN while abroad). He actually told her that the person who claimed
Chalabi was wanted was probably speaking his own "personal" opinion and
that it wasn't representative of the 'government'- never mind the
person in question was the Minister of Defense. To be perfectly fair,
he didn't mention which government he was referring to- I couldn't tell
if he was talking about the US, the UK or the current group of Puppets.
He claimed that for Chalabi to be arrested there needed to be 'proof'
he had actually done something wrong... the Interpol wanting him really
wasn't enough.
It's a bit discouraging to watch the current government so
uncoordinated. It's like they don't even communicate with each other.
It's also somewhat disturbing to know that they can't seem to decide
who is a criminal and who isn't. Isn't there some "idiots guide to
being a good Vichy government"?
They say communications are going to be cut off very soon. Telephones
are often cut off and the mobile network is sometimes inaccessible for
days at a time but we heard there also might not be web access.
Students have a mid-year vacation right now but no one is going
anywhere. Almost everyone is trapped at home because the security
situation is quite bad and no one wants to be caught in an area where
an explosion might occur. If the bomb doesn't kill you, the Iraqi
security forces or the Americans might and if no one kills you then you
risk getting a bag over the head and a trip to Abu Ghraib.
There's an almost palpable anxiety in the air these last couple of
weeks and it's beginning to wear on people- fuel shortages, water
shortages and a lack of electricity. It's like the first days of the
war all over again.
Juan Cole has a "The Speech Bush SHOULD have Given" and it's quite
good. In my opinion, during this year's inaugral Bush could have summed
it up with the following: "Ha! I can't believe you people actually
re-elected me! Unbelievable! Some people just loooove the abuse!!!"
Peter Leighton
"J Buck" <jbu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6996-421...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
Quite true.
That's not being conservative.
That's being Bush.
Peter
Barney Lyon
their own security? To have enough Iraqis trained, to take over so
that all of America's military can leave Iraq? Two months? Six
months? Six years?
How long?
If America was attacked and instituted a draft, how long do you think
it would take to train Americans to fight to defend the nation?
This is how it's been for American draftees in the past, and this is
how it's been predicted to work for future wars and drafts:
"Inductees will receive at least three to six months of training before
being deployed to a combat zone. Some inductees might receive more
extensive training in a specialized field, which could last as much as
a year or more. However, given that draftees are expected to serve 24
months, it is unlikely that the military would spend significant
amounts of time providing specialized training to large numbers of
conscripts."
"Mission Accomplished" - May 2, 2003, even though Bagdad fell on April
9, 2003. That was 2 years ago.
This was a year after that:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200...
This was last week, AFTER Iraq's election:
Four out of 10 desert new security force when under fire
By Jack Fairweather in Baghdad
(Filed: 02/02/2005)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/02/wirq1...
How long? A date. How long are Americans to mortgage
their futures, their children's futures, their grandchildrens' futures,
paying Billion$ ($300 Billion to date, $100 Billion since our own 11/04
election) on Iraq?
Bob Gill
> People who think being conservative means wanting America to make every
> country a capitalistic, democratic society under fundamentalist
> Christian rule are blinded by their hatred of 'Bushies'.
This pinpoints one of the key characteristics of Bush's administration, I
think. The traditional conservative view is that the U.S. should stay out
of foreign adventures and avoid "nation-building." Bush's trumped-up
invasion of Iraq runs directly counter to this tradition.
Similarly, conservatives have always believed in smaller government, but
Bush has increased the size of the federal government significantly since
taking office, and is hoping to expand it further. Again, this is
antithetical to traditional conservatism. I don't understand why so many of
these traditional conservatives keep supporting Bush. He's not a
conservative; he's a radical. Sure, he's a radical right-winger, for lack
of a better term, but he's not following the conservatives' key positions.
I think a better description of his political philosophy is "if it feels
good, do it," which hardly sounds conservative. But think about it: If you
want to invade Iraq, find someone who will give you a flimsy but perhaps
momentarily convincing rationale and do it. If you want to cut taxes, do
it. If you want to expand the government anyway, do that too. If you want
to launch a war but don't want to pay for it, go ahead. Someone else can
take care of it somewhere down the line.
-- Bob G.
Mr. Rick
>Sure, he's a radical right-winger, for lack of a better term, but he's not
following the conservatives' key positions.
The key conservative position is Jesus.
Peter Leighton
"Mr. Rick" <richar...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:kp5Vd.65239$Dc.20687@trnddc06...
Whose Jesus?
Which Jesus?
As an atheist, I'm amused to see so many try to claim ownership.
Sort of like...
Peter
blue
Terry
jenn...@earthlink.net (blue) wrote:
> which is surprising considering what a radical Jesus was . . .
Not that Jesus.