Salam

[b]Tuesday 6 December 2005[/b]

This is a dark day for the world.

America finally admits that it has been defeated in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/index.html

Terrorists will be celebrating today.

Omrow

Quote:

Training of Iraq Forces Suffers 'Setback'

By SALLY BUZBEE
Associated Press Writer

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- The training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months, with the army and other forces being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said Monday.

Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.

Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country.

Al-Yawer, a Sunni moderate, said he agreed the United States cannot pull out now because "there will be a huge vacuum," leaving Iraq in danger of falling into civil war. In particular, armed Shiite militias in the south might try to incite war if U.S.-led coalition forces leave, he said in an interview with The Associated Press and a U.S. newspaper at a conference here.

"I wish it were that simple," he said of calls to set a timetable for withdrawal or a drawdown.

But al-Yawer said recent allegations that Interior Ministry security forces - dominated by Shiites - have tortured Sunni detainees were evidence that many forces are increasingly politicized and sectarian. Some of the recently trained Iraqi forces focus on settling scores and other political goals rather than maintaining security, he said.

In addition, some Iraqi military commanders have been dismissed for political reasons, rather than judged on merit, he said.

He said the army - also dominated by Shiites - is conducting raids against villages and towns in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq, rather than targeting specific insurgents - a tactic he said reminded many Sunnis of Saddam Hussein-era raids.

"Saddam used to raid villages," using security forces, he said. "This is not the way to do it."

Al-Yawer also expressed grave concern that Iraqi army units might use intimidation to try to keep Sunni voters from the polls during the country's crucial Dec. 15 general election.

American officials - and Sunni moderates like al-Yawer - are trying to persuade Sunnis to go to the polls, hoping that if they gain a sizable chunk of parliament, Sunnis will abandon support for the insurgency.

Al-Yawer said many Sunnis want to vote. But he noted that both intimidation and voter fraud occurred during the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, and complaints to the Iraqi Electoral Commission and U.N. voting advisers went nowhere, he said.

His supporters have made a series of requests to ensure a fair vote this time, including changes to the electoral commission and adequate numbers of polling stations and ballots in Sunni areas, he said. Most importantly, they have asked that U.S.-led coalition forces, and not Iraqi army troops, guard polling stations, he said.

Many outside experts have expressed concern that Iraqi security forces will actually increase tensions if they guard Sunni areas, rather than keep order. Al-Yawer did not specifically say that Shiites make up too much of the army, but said he would like to see more political and sectarian balance - especially among the officer corps.

Al-Yawer, running on a slate of secular candidates along with former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, also said he believes the Saddam trial also should be postponed until after the Dec. 15 election so Iraqis can focus on the election.

Wow. Bush not fully acquainted with the facts.

The CNN headline is changed within a few hours from:

[b]Dean: U.S. can't win Iraq war[/b]

to

[b]Bush: 'I know we're going to win' in Iraq[/b]

--------------

Even those who have not done media studies can all see the reasons why CNN did what it did.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/index.html

"[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4531904.stm wrote:

BBC News[/url]"][size=18]'High turnout' in Iraqi election[/size]

Iraqis have voted in large numbers for their first full-term government since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Voting was extended by an hour in some areas because of the high turnout, Iraq's election commission said.

Sunni Arabs, who boycotted the last election in January, appear to have participated in large numbers, even in insurgent strongholds.

Despite tight security, several incidents of violence were reported, but voting was not seriously disrupted.

About 150,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers were on patrol across the country, backed up by US soldiers. Borders and airports were closed.

Turnout is reported to have quickened throughout the day, with people queuing to cast their ballots.

That was the case even in the predominantly Sunni cities of Falluja and Ramadi, hotbeds of insurgent activity. At one stage, an election official in Falluja said that so many people were voting, they had run out of ballot papers.

Sunni nationalist insurgent groups had urged people to vote, in order to prevent the election of a government completely dominated by Shias and Kurds.

However, the al-Qaeda in Iraq group denounced the election as the work of Satan and threatened attacks.

It is believed to have been behind an explosion in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, which houses government buildings, shortly after the polls opened. Two civilians and a US marine were slightly injured.

[b]'Day of victory'[/b]

Some 15 million Iraqis were eligible to vote.

Most had to walk to polling stations as movement of vehicles was banned to prevent car bomb attacks.

"It's a day of victory, a day of independence and freedom," said 60-year-old Shia Muslim Mohammed Ahmed al-Bayati as he voted in Baghdad.

Teacher Khalid Fawaz in Falluja said he was voting "so that the Sunnis are no longer marginalised".

Crowds turned out in Basra, the largest city in the Shia-dominated south, as well as the holy city of Najaf, dancing and chanting support for the alliance of religious Shia parties which is expected to win the largest number of seats.

BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson in Baghdad says the voters he spoke to believe the election will help to bring about a strong, effective government of the kind Iraqis are desperate for.

He says people also think it will bring Sunnis into government in some strength, and that it will get rid of the Americans and British, whose military presence is widely disliked.

But he adds that Iraqi politicians are well aware that this positive feeling will evaporate if it takes them as long to form a coalition government as it did after the January election.

The new national assembly will replace the transitional government elected in January, and will serve a full four-year term.

Some 6,655 candidates, 307 parties and 19 coalitions registered for the ballot, electoral officials say.

A spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission, Fareed Ayar, said results would be announced "within two weeks".

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4531904.stm]BBC News[/url]

Unless the wrong guys win...

Then back to square one.

However I am pretty sure alot of international forces will leave within the next 12 months.

Not because they have won, but its the last chance they can make a face saving withdrawal, and call it victory...

(For some reason someone told me today I have a negative view on life. Dunno why he thought that...)

"[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4534260.stm wrote:

BBC News[/url]"][size=18]Iraq vote 'met global standards'[/size]

International observers have praised the organisers of Iraq's parliamentary election, which they said generally met international standards.

A spokesman for the International Mission for Iraqi Elections conceded that there had been minor problems, but said the vote had generally gone well.

About 11m Iraqis were estimated to have voted, a turnout of about 70%, with results due in two weeks or more.

President Bush is to make an address on the situation in Iraq on Sunday night.

"We are now entering a critical period for our mission in Iraq, the president will talk about what we have accomplished and where we're headed," said his spokesman, annoucing the rare address from the Oval Office, to be made at 2100 on Sunday (0200GMT Monday).

[b]'Difficult circumstances'[/b]

"The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq is to be commended on the way it has performed its role under the difficult circumstances prevailing in Iraq," said Paul Dacey, spokesman for the international observers.

Iraq's staging of major elections in January, October and December would have been a major challenge even for well-established democracies, Mr Dacey said.

The country's electoral commission announced on Friday that 320,000 Iraqis living abroad voted in the election.

Around 15 million Iraqis were eligible to vote for the country's first full-term government since Saddam Hussein was ousted in 2003.

The vote will elect 275 members of a national parliament, who will in turn appoint a president.

[b]Sunni votes[/b]

Voting was extended in many parts as Sunni Arabs took part after boycotting previous elections.

Election officials reported high turnouts even in Sunni insurgent strongholds such as Falluja and Ramadi.

The voting took place amid a massive security operation, with 150,000 Iraqi troops and police deployed and borders and airports closed.

US President George W Bush described the vote as "historic", and appeared delighted with the high turn out.

Sunni nationalist insurgent groups had urged people to vote to prevent the election of a government dominated by Shias and Kurds.

However, the al-Qaeda in Iraq group denounced the election and threatened attacks. Two civilians and a US marine were slightly injured in morning attacks.

The new national assembly will replace the transitional government elected in January. Some 6,655 candidates, 307 parties and 19 coalitions registered for the ballot.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4534260.stm]BBC News[/url]

Salam

"Don Karnage" wrote:

AWESOME!!!

...now let's go

I know you are dying to leave Iraq, but no.

Don't end the occupation just yet.

Go in a year or two.

Iraqis are very unpredictable, as President Bush unfortunately discovered.

You need to give Iraqis time to settle down after their election party on 4th of July.

Omrow

[b]Full speech of President Bush which he gave after the Iraqi elections:[/b]

PRESIDENT BUSH:

" Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.
This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.
All who had a part in this achievement -- Iraqis, Americans, and coalition partners -- can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.
From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator, we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons.
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum -- and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant -- only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.
Since the removal of Saddam, this war -- like other wars in our history -- has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols -- fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists -- has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.
That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.
This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals -- to demoralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends.
These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere -- they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens -- they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.
My conviction comes down to this: we do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.
This work has been especially difficult in Iraq -- more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi security forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal -- unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.
Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose -- and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.
The terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult -- it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.
America, our coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal -- a democratic Iraq that can defend itself, that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists, and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.
We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal -- a strategy I have been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements.
First, our coalition will remain on the offense -- finding and clearing out the enemy, transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units, and building up the Iraqi security forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy, more than 50 are taking the lead and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.
Second, we are helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's peoples are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls -- including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January.
Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love -- and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" He responded, "I am Iraqi."
Third, after a number of setbacks, our coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure -- and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well -- and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic -- and that optimism is justified.
In all three aspects of our strategy -- security, democracy, and reconstruction -- we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission.
Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: not only can we win the war in Iraq -- we are winning the war in Iraq.
It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends -- and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word.
We would undermine the morale of our troops -- by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us -- and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before.
To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor and I will not allow it.
We are approaching a New Year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice -- from our military, their families, and the Iraqi people.
We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption. We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward.
As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders -- not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory -- and that is the road that will take them home.
In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war. Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military. Our men and women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and urgent work.
And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war, to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause.
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt.
Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.
Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions.
I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much -- but tell me he loved being a soldier, he believed in his mission and Mr. President, finish the job.
I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your president requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences.
And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.
Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth.
And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, good-will to men."

Thank you, and good night. "

Sunday 18 December 2005.
--------------------------------

Quote:

[size=18]Iraq, 1917[/size]

[b]They came as liberators but were met by fierce resistance outside Baghdad. Humiliating treatment of prisoners and heavy-handed action in Najaf and Fallujah further alienated the local population. A planned handover of power proved unworkable.[/b]

Britain's 1917 occupation of Iraq holds uncanny parallels with today - and if we want to know what will happen there next, we need only turn to our history books...

On the eve of our "handover" of "full sovereignty" to Iraq, this is a story of tragedy and folly and of dark foreboding. It is about the past-made-present, and our ability to copy blindly and to the very letter the lies and follies of our ancestors. It is about that admonition of antiquity: that if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. For Iraq 1917, read Iraq 2003. For Iraq 1920, read Iraq 2004 or 2005.

Yes, we are preparing to give "full sovereignty" to Iraq. That's also what the British falsely claimed more than 80 years ago. Come, then, and confront the looking glass of history, and see what America and Britain will do in the next 12 terrible months in Iraq.

Our story begins in March 1917 as 22-year-old Private 11072 Charles Dickens of the Cheshire Regiment peels a poster off a wall in the newly captured city of Baghdad. It is a turning point in his life. He has survived the hopeless Gallipoli campaign, attacking the Ottoman empire only 150 miles from its capital, Constantinople. He has then marched the length of Mesopotamia, fighting the Turks yet again for possession of the ancient caliphate, and enduring the grim battle for Baghdad. The British invasion army of 600,000 soldiers was led by Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Maude, and the sheet of paper that caught Private Dickens's attention was Maude's official "Proclamation" to the people of Baghdad, printed in English and Arabic.

That same 11in by 18in poster, now framed in black and gold, hangs on the wall a few feet from my desk as I write this story of empire and dark prophecy. Long ago, the paper was stained with damp - "foxed", as booksellers say - which may have been Private Dickens's perspiration in the long hot Iraqi summer of
1917. It has been folded many times; witness, as his daughter Hilda would recall 86 years later, to its presence in his army knapsack over many months.

In a letter to me, she called this "his precious document", and I can see why. It is filled with noble aspirations and presentiments of future tragedy; with the false promises of the world's greatest empire, commitments and good intentions; and with words of honour that were to be repeated in the same city of Baghdad by the next great empire more than two decades after Dickens's death. It reads now like a funeral dirge:

"Proclamation... Our military operations have as their object, the defeat of the enemy and the driving of him from these territories. In order to complete this task I am charged with absolute and supreme control of all regions in which British troops operate; but our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators... Your citizens have been subject to the tyranny of strangers... and your fathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage. Your sons have been carried off to wars not of your seeking, your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered in different places. It is the wish not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the great Nations with whom he is in alliance, that you should prosper even as in the past when your lands were fertile... But you, people of Baghdad... are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions. It is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realised once again, that the people of Baghdad shall flourish, and shall enjoy their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws and with their racial ideals... It is the hope and desire of the British people... that the Arab race may rise once more to greatness and renown amongst the peoples of the Earth... Therefore I am commanded to invite you, through your Nobles and Elders and Representatives, to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the Political Representative of Great Britain... so that you may unite with your kinsmen in the North, East, South and West, in realising the aspirations of your Race.

(signed) F.S. Maude, Lieutenant-General, Commanding the British Forces in Iraq."

Private Dickens spent the First World War fighting Muslims, first the Turks at Suvla Bay at Gallipoli and then the Turkish army - which included Iraqi soldiers - in Mesopotamia. He spoke "often and admirably," his daughter would recall, of one of his commanders, General Sir Charles Munro, who at 55 had fought in the last months of the Gallipoli campaign and then landed at Basra in southern Iraq at the start of the British invasion.

But Munro's leadership did not save Dickens's sister's nephew, Samuel Martin, who was killed by the Turks at Basra. Hilda remembers: "My father told of how killing a Turk, he thought it was in revenge for the death of his 'nephew'. I don't know if they were in the same battalion, but they were a similar age, 22 years."

In all, Britain lost 40,000 men in the Mesopotamian campaign. The British had been proud of their initial occupation of Basra. More than 80 years later, Shameem Bhatia, a British Muslim whose family came from Pakistan, would send me an amused letter, along with a series of 12 very old postcards, which were printed by The Times of India in Bombay on behalf of the Indian YMCA. One of them showed British artillery amid the Basra date palms; another a soldier in a pith helmet, turning towards the camera as his comrades tether horses behind him; others the crew of a British gunboat on the Shatt al-Arab river, and the Turkish-held town of Kurna, one of its buildings shattered by British shellfire, shortly before its surrender. The ruins then looked, of course, identical to the Iraqi ruins of today. There are only so many ways in which a shell can smash through a home.

As long ago as 1914, a senior British official was told by "local [Arab] notables" that "we should be received in Baghdad with the same cordiality [as in southern Iraq] and that the Turkish troops would offer little if any opposition". But the British invasion of Iraq had originally failed. When Major-General Charles Townshend took 13,000 men up the banks of the Tigris towards Baghdad, he was surrounded and defeated by Turkish forces at Kut al-Amara. His surrender was the most comprehensive of military disasters, ending in a death march to Turkey for those British troops who had not been killed in battle.

The graves of 500 of them in the Kut War Cemetery sank into sewage during the period of United Nations sanctions that followed Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, when spare parts for the pumps needed to keep sewage from the graves were not supplied to Iraq. Visiting the cemetery in 1998, my colleague Patrick Cockburn found "tombstones... still just visible above the slimy green water. A broken cement cross sticks out of a reed bed... A quagmire in which thousands of little green frogs swarm like cockroaches as they feed on garbage."

Baghdad looked much the same when Private Dickens arrived in 1917. Less than two years earlier, a visitor had described a city whose streets "gaped emptily. The shops were mostly closed... In the Christian cemetery east of the high road leading to Persia, coffins and half-mouldering skeletons were floating. On account of the Cholera which was ravaging the town [three hundred people were dying of it every day] the Christian dead were now being buried on the new embankment of the high road, so that people walking and riding not only had to pass by but even to make their way among and over the graves... There was no longer any life in the town."

The British occupation was dark with historical precedent. There was, of course, no "cordial" reception of British troops in Baghdad. Indeed, Iraqi troops who had been serving with the Turkish army but who "always entertained friendly ideas towards the English" were jailed - not in Abu Ghraib, but in India - and found that while in prison there they were "insulted and humiliated in every way". These same prisoners wanted to know if the British would hand Iraq over to Sherif Hussein of the Hejaz - to whom the British had made fulsome and ultimately mendacious promises of "independence" for the Arab world if he fought alongside the Allies against the Turks - on the grounds that "some of the Holy Moslem Shrines are located in Mesopotamia".

British officials believed that control of Mesopotamia would safeguard British oil interests in Persia (the initial occupation of Basra was ostensibly designed to do that) and that "clearly it is our right and duty, if we sacrifice so much for the peace of the world, that we should see to it we have compensation, or we may defeat our end" - which was not how Lt-Gen Maude expressed Britain's ambitions in his famous proclamation in 1917.

Earl Asquith was to write in his memoirs that he and Sir Edward Grey, the British foreign secretary, agreed in 1915 that "taking Mesopotamia... means spending millions in irrigation and development". Which is precisely what President George Bush was forced to do only months after his illegal invasion in
2003.

Those who want to wallow in even more ghastly historical parallels should turn to the magnificent research of the Iraqi scholar Ghassan Attiyah, whose volume on the British occupation was published in Beirut long before Saddam's regime took over Iraq, at a time when Iraqi as well as British archives of the period were still available. Attiyah's Iraq,
1902-1921: A Socio-Political Study, written 30 years before the Anglo-American invasion, should be read by all Western "statesmen" planning to occupy Arab countries.

As Attiyah discovered, the British, once they were installed in Baghdad, decided in the winter of 1917 that Iraq would have to be governed and reconstructed by a "council" formed partly of British advisers "and partly of representative non-official members from among the inhabitants". The copycat 2003 version of this "council" was, of course, the Interim Governing Council, supposedly the brainchild of Maude's American successor, Paul Bremer.

Later, the British thought they would like "a cabinet half of natives and half of British officials, behind which might be an administrative council, or some advisory body consisting entirely of prominent natives". The traveller and scholar Gertrude Bell, who became "oriental secretary" to the British military occupation authority, had no doubts about Iraqi public opinion: "The stronger the hold we are able to keep here the better the inhabitants will be pleased... They can't conceive an independent Arab government. Nor, I confess, can I. There is no one here who could run it."

Again, this was far from the noble aspirations of Maude's proclamation issued * * 11 months earlier. Nor would the Iraqis have been surprised had they been told (which, of course, they were not) that Maude strongly opposed the very proclamation that appeared over his name, and which in fact had been written by Sir Mark Sykes - the very same Sykes who had drawn up the secret 1916 agreement with F Georges-Picot for French and British control over much of the post-war Middle East.

But, by September 1919, even journalists were beginning to grasp that Britain's plans for Iraq were founded upon illusions. "I imagine," the correspondent for The Times wrote on 23 September, "that the view held by many English people about Mesopotamia is that the local inhabitants will welcome us because we have saved them from the Turks, and that the country only needs developing to repay a large expenditure of English lives and English money. Neither of these ideals will bear much examination... From the political point of view we are asking the Arab to exchange his pride and independence for a little Western civilisation, the profits of which must be largely absorbed by the expenses of administration."

Within six months, Britain was fighting a military insurrection in Iraq and David Lloyd George, the prime minister, was facing calls for a military withdrawal. "Is it not for the benefit of the people of that country that it should be governed so as to enable them to develop this land which has been withered and shrivelled up by oppression? What would happen if we withdrew?" Lloyd George would not abandon Iraq to "anarchy and confusion". By this stage, British officials in Baghdad were blaming the violence on "local political agitation, originated outside Iraq", suggesting that Syria might be involved.

Come again? Could history repeat itself so perfectly? For Lloyd George's "anarchy", read any statement from the American occupation power warning of "civil war" in the event of a Western withdrawal. For Syria - well, read Syria.

AT Wilson, the senior British official in Iraq in
1920, took a predictable line. "We cannot maintain our position... by a policy of conciliation of extremists. Having set our hand to the task of regenerating Mesopotamia, we must be prepared to furnish men and money... We must be prepared... to go very slowly with constitutional and democratic institutions."

There was fighting in the Shia town of Kufa and a British siege of Najaf after a British official was murdered. The British demanded "the unconditional surrender of the murderers and others concerned in the plot", and the leading Shia divine, Sayed Khadum Yazdi, abstained from supporting the rebellion and shut himself up in his house. Eleven of the insurgents were executed. A local sheikh, Badr al-Rumaydh, became a target. "Badr must be killed or captured, and a relentless pursuit of the man till this object is obtained should be carried out," a British political officer wrote.

The British now realised that they had made one big political mistake. They had alienated a major political group in Iraq - the ex-Turkish Iraqi officials and officers. The ranks of the disaffected swelled. For Kufa 1920, read Kufa 2004. For Najaf
1920, read Najaf 2004. For Yazdi, read Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. For Badr, read Muqtada al-Sadr.

In 1920, another insurgency broke out in the area of Fallujah, where Sheikh Dhari killed a British officer, Colonel Leachman, and cut rail traffic between Fallujah and Baghdad. The British advanced towards Fallujah and inflicted "heavy punishment" on the tribe. For Fallujah, of course, read Fallujah. And the location of the heavy punishment? Today it is known as Khan Dari - and it was the scene of the first killing of a US soldier by a roadside bomb in 2003.

In desperation, the British needed "to complete the façade of the Arab government". And so, with Winston Churchill's enthusiastic support, the British gave the throne of Iraq to the Hashemite King Faisal, the son of Sherif Hussein, a consolation prize for the man the French had just thrown out of Damascus. Paris was having no kings in its own mandated territory of Syria. Henceforth, the British government - deprived of reconstruction funds by an international recession, and confronted by an increasingly unwilling soldiery, which had fought during the 1914-18 war and was waiting for demobilisation - would rely on air power to impose its wishes.

There are no kings to impose on Iraq today (the former Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan pulled his hat out of the ring just before the invasion), so we have installed Iyad Allawi, the former CIA "asset", as prime minister in the hope that he can provide the same sovereign wallpaper as Faisal once did. Our soldiers can hide out in the desert, hopefully unattacked, unless they are needed to shore up the tottering power of our present-day "Faisal".

And so we come to the immediate future of Iraq. How are we to "control" Iraq while claiming that we have handed over "full sovereignty"? Again, the archives come to our rescue. The Royal Air Force, again with Churchill's support, bombed rebellious villages and dissident tribesmen in Iraq. Churchill urged the employment of mustard gas, which had been used against Shia rebels in 1920.

Squadron Leader Arthur Harris, later Marshal of the Royal Air Force and the man who perfected the firestorm destruction of Hamburg, Dresden and other great German cities in the Second World War, was employed to refine the bombing of Iraqi insurgents. The RAF found, he wrote much later, "that by burning down their reed-hutted villages, after we'd warned them to get out, we put them to the maximum amount of inconvenience, without physical hurt [sic], and they soon stopped their raiding and looting..."

This was what, in its emasculation of the English language, the Pentagon would now call "war lite". But the bombing was not as surgical as Harris's official biographer would suggest. In 1924, he had admitted that "they [the Arabs and Kurds] now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage; they know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured".

TE Lawrence - Lawrence of Arabia - remarked in a 1920 letter to The Observer that "it is odd that we do not use poison gas on these occasions". Air Commodore Lionel Charlton was so appalled at the casualties inflicted on innocent villagers that he resigned his post as Senior Air Staff Officer Iraq because he could no longer "maintain the policy of intimidation by bomb". He had visited an Iraqi hospital to find it full of wounded tribesmen. After the RAF had bombed the Kurdish rebel city of Sulaymaniyah, Charlton "knew the crowded life of these settlements and pictured with horror the arrival of a bomb, without warning, in the midst of a market gathering or in the bazaar quarter. Men, women and children would suffer equally."

Already, we have seen the use of almost indiscriminate air power by the American forces in Iraq: the destruction of homes in "dissident" villages, the bombing of mosques where weapons are allegedly concealed, the slaughter-by-air-strike of "terrorists" near the Syrian border, who turned out to be a wedding party. Much the same policy has been adopted in the already abandoned "democracy" of Afghanistan.

As for the soldiers, we couldn't ship our corpses home in the heat of the Middle East 80 years ago, so we buried them in the great North Wall Cemetery in Baghdad, where they lie to this day, most of them in their late teens and twenties. We didn't hide their coffins. Their last resting place is still there for all to see today, opposite the ruins of the suicide-bombed Turkish embassy.

As for the gravestone of Samuel Martin, it stood for years in the British war cemetery in Basra with the following inscription: "In Memory of Private Samuel Martin 24384, 8th Bn, Cheshire Regiment who died on Sunday 9 April 1916. Private Martin, son of George and Sarah Martin, of the Beech Tree Inn, Barnton, Northwich, Cheshire."

In the gales of shellfire that swept Basra during the 1980-88 war with Iran, the cemetery was destroyed and looted and many gravestones shattered beyond repair. When I visited the cemetery in the chaotic months after the Anglo-American invasion of 2003, I found wild dogs roaming between the broken headstones. Even the brass fittings of the central memorial had been stolen. Sic transit gloria.

[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6337.htm]'Information Clearing House' quoting The Independent quoting an excerpt from a Robert Fisk book[/url]

Very Interesting...

Quote:

Within six months, Britain was fighting a military insurrection in Iraq and David Lloyd George, the prime minister, was facing calls for a military withdrawal..... Lloyd George would not abandon Iraq to "anarchy and confusion". By this stage, British officials in Baghdad were blaming the violence on "local political agitation, originated outside Iraq", suggesting that Syria might be involved.

Come again? Could history repeat itself so perfectly? For Lloyd George's "anarchy", read any statement from the American occupation power warning of "civil war" in the event of a Western withdrawal. For Syria - well, read Syria.

lol.

Quote:

There was fighting in the Shia town of Kufa and a British siege of Najaf after a British official was murdered. The British demanded "the unconditional surrender of the murderers and others concerned in the plot", and the leading Shia divine, Sayed Khadum Yazdi, abstained from supporting the rebellion and shut himself up in his house. Eleven of the insurgents were executed. A local sheikh, Badr al-Rumaydh, became a target. "Badr must be killed or captured, and a relentless pursuit of the man till this object is obtained should be carried out," a British political officer wrote.

The British now realised that they had made one big political mistake. They had alienated a major political group in Iraq - the ex-Turkish Iraqi officials and officers. The ranks of the disaffected swelled. For Kufa 1920, read Kufa 2004. For Najaf
1920, read Najaf 2004. For Yazdi, read Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. For Badr, read Muqtada al-Sadr.

eery

Quote:

In 1920, another insurgency broke out in the area of Fallujah, where Sheikh Dhari killed a British officer, Colonel Leachman, and cut rail traffic between Fallujah and Baghdad. The British advanced towards Fallujah and inflicted "heavy punishment" on the tribe. For Fallujah, of course, read Fallujah. And the location of the heavy punishment? Today it is known as Khan Dari - and it was the scene of the first killing of a US soldier by a roadside bomb in 2003.

They should teach intl history in all schools. maybe then the right people would have seen history repeating itself.

shrub?

oh. get it now.

Oh and watch [url=http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.html]B... Bird And Fortune: Between Iraq and a hard place[/url]

Its pre-war, but its eerily spot on.

(its a comedy show... Rory bremner is really good at impersonating others...)

Oops it seems they have removed the video option... you can only read the transcript now...

Anyone got any links to this?

ok... to make up for that disapointment...

"[url=http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/bremnerbirdfortune.htm... wrote:

Bremner Bird & Fortune[/url]"][url=http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/images/5pnac.ram]The Project for the New American Century, PNAC (3min 01s)[/url]

In January 1998 eighteen members of a right-wing American thinktank wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton recommending "regime change" in Iraq.

Five years later and no fewer than nine signatories of the letter now hold positions in George Bush's administration.

Is it surprising that "regime change" now appears to be American policy?

[url=http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/pnacletter.html]Read the PNAC letter here[/url]

Garrh! I cannot see anything!

(ps does the link to bremner bird and fortune [url=http://www.therevival.co.uk/audio.php]here[/url] work? I am not sure why, but my PC is not playing the files...)

I guess this Christmas will be remembered as a Bush Bashing Christmas (BBC).

Almost all of today's Editorial pages in The Washington Post are devoted to whipping their own President:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/print/editorialpages/index....

"Omrow" wrote:

I guess this Christmas will be remembered as a Bush Bashing Christmas (BBC).

Almost all of today's Editorial pages in The Washington Post are devoted to whipping their own President:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/print/editorialpages/index....

Its the Post, its what it does, imagine what the Republicans were thinking whe watergate broke.

[b]New Year 2006 starts with killings in Iraq:[/b]

BBC - Wednesday 4 January 2006

[b]Iraq's deadliest day since poll [/b]

More than 100 mourners were at the funeral that was targeted
A string of attacks across Iraq has made it the deadliest day in the country since the 15 December election.
In the worst attack, at least 36 people were killed in a suicide bombing at a Shia funeral north of Baghdad. Across Iraq, more than 50 people died.
In Washington, President George Bush said the plan in Iraq was going well.
He said Iraqi forces were improving all the time. "As Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down," he said, touting possible further cuts in US troop levels.
Mr Bush said wide participation in Iraq's election showed the people were buying into the new democracy, and had more confidence in their security.
"The election results served as a real defeat for the rejectionists," he said.
However, after a drop in insurgent attacks around the time of the elections, car bombings and suicide attacks have intensified.
In some of Wednesday's other incidents:
At least seven people are killed and 13 injured in an attack on the busy commercial market in Baghdad's southern al-Dawra suburb;
Five die and 13 are injured when a car bomb explodes outside a police station in the capital's mainly Shia Kadhimiya district;
An official at the oil ministry and his son are shot dead in their car in western Baghdad;
Roadblocks are set up in Baghdad as police search for the sister of Interior Minister Bayan Jabr who was kidnapped on Tuesday;
At least two civilians are killed in Kirkuk as their car is hit by a roadside bomb intended for a US patrol.

Blood-stained tombstones

In Wednesday's attack on a funeral near Baquba, mourners took cover in a graveyard amid mortar and automatic weapons fire, before a suicide bomber detonated explosives attached to his body.
The funeral was for a bodyguard killed in an unsuccessful assassination attempt on a local leader of Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari's Islamic Dawa Party.
The explosion in Miqdadiya, 100km (60 miles) from Baghdad, left tombstones stained with blood and small body parts on the ground, police said.
Police Lt Salam Hussein told the Associated Press that the bombing had been a "terrorist act" aimed at igniting a Shia-Sunni civil war.
The people behind such attacks want to destabilise the country and shed more blood," he added.
The politician targeted in the attack on Tuesday escaped with his life.

Fuel crisis

Shortly after the funeral attack, a convoy of 60 fuel tankers was ambushed, with insurgents firing rocket-propelled grenades at the convoy, police said.
One driver was killed and at least 18 vehicles in the escorted convoy were damaged or destroyed in the attack about 40 km (25 miles) north of Baghdad, according to police.
The attack comes as Iraq grapples with a fuel crisis stemming from the closure of a major refinery in the north that has prompted panic buying of fuel and long queues at petrol stations.
The defence ministry said there have been 420 incidents in the last week which have killed or injured more than 200 people, the BBC's Alastair Leithead in Baghdad says.
The violence comes as Shia, Sunni and Kurdish politicians continue efforts to form a coalition governments in the wake of the elections.
But the violence is a reminder of how quickly militants can fill the political vacuum, our correspondent says.

[b]Iraq suicide bomb blasts kill 120 [/b]

Suicide bombers have killed at least 120 people in two central Iraqi cities - in the deadliest day of attacks since elections last month.
The first blast was near a major Shia shrine in Karbala, killing at least 60 people and injuring more than 100.
Soon afterwards, a blast at a police recruiting centre in Ramadi killed around 60 and injured some 60 others.
In Baghdad, a roadside bomb killed five US soldiers. The capital was also hit by three car bombs.
On Wednesday more than 50 people died in attacks across Iraq.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said those who thought the attacks would drive a wedge between Iraq's religious groups and destabilise the political process were wrong.
"These groups of dark terror will not succeed through these cowardly acts in dissuading Iraqis in their bid to form a government of national unity," he said.
Discussions are going on between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties to establish a coalition government once the final results from December's parliamentary elections are released.

Rebel stronghold

The Ramadi explosion occurred at 1055 (0755 GMT) when the bomber blew himself up among a crowd of about 1,000 applicants queuing in a police recruitment drive.
US military spokesman Capt Jeffrey Pool said surviving recruits later got back in line to continue the screening process.
Iraqi police and officials are regularly targeted by insurgents, and the city has been a rebel stronghold for many months.
In Karbala, the bomber blew himself up at about 1000 (0700 GMT) in a crowded pedestrian area between the Imam Hussein shrine and the nearby shrine to Imam Abbas.
The bomber's suicide vest had been laced with ball bearings and grenades, police said.
The area is popular with pilgrims and foreigners may be among the casualties.
Mohammed Sahib, a pilgrim who sustained a head injury, condemned the attack.
"I never thought that such a crime could happen near this holy site," he told the Associated Press.
"The terrorists spare no place from their ugly deeds. This is a criminal act against faithful pilgrims. The terrorists are targeting the Shias."

Sealed off

Iraqi television showed body parts and torn clothing in pools of blood.
Survivors were being evacuated in ambulances, cars and vans.
Police spokesman Raman Ashawi said the final number of dead could be much higher.
A tribal leader in the area told the BBC the city had been sealed off to traffic after reports that there may also be a car bomb in the vicinity.
Thursday's attack was the bloodiest in Karbala since March 2004, when 85 people were killed and 230 were injured as co-ordinated bombings near the main mosque targeted Shias celebrating the festival of Ashura.

BLOODIEST VIOLENCE IN IRAQ

5 Jan 2006 - 110 dead
Suicide bombers hit Karbala shrine and police recruiting station in Ramadi
18 Nov 2005 - 80 dead
Multiple bombings in Baghdad and two Khanaqin mosques
14 Sept 2005 - 182 dead
Suicide car bomber targets Baghdad labourers in worst of a series of bombs
16 Aug 2005 - 90 dead
Suicide bomber detonates fuel tanker in Musayyib
28 Feb 2005 - 114 dead
Suicide car bomb hits government jobseekers in Hilla
24 June 2004 - 100 dead
Co-ordinated blasts in Mosul and four other cities
2 March 2004 - 140 dead
Suicide bombers attack Shia festival-goers in Karbala and Baghdad
1 Feb 2004 - 105 dead
Twin attacks on Kurdish parties' offices in Irbil
28 Aug 2003 - 85 dead
Car bomb at Najaf shrine kills Shia cleric Muhammad Baqr Hakim and many others

[b]Iraq violence kills 11 US troops [/b]

Eleven US troops were killed in a series of attacks throughout Iraq on Thursday, the US military has said.
The number of American fatalities was the highest in a single day since the same number were killed on 1 December.
In a wave of violence, two suicide bombers killed more than 120 people in the central Iraqi cities of Karbala and Ramadi on Thursday.
The deaths came just one day after US President George Bush said the US plan in Iraq was succeeding.
President Bush said the US would aim to put more Iraqi territory under the control of Iraqi security forces during 2006 if Iraqis made good progress.
But he refused to outline a timetable for withdrawal, saying conditions on the ground, not pressure from political opponents, would inform decisions.

Wave of violence

Five US soldiers were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol south of Karbala.
Another roadside bomb struck a US army vehicle north of Baghdad and killed two soldiers.
Elsewhere, two marines were shot dead by gunmen while conducting combat operations in the central Iraqi town of Falluja.
The suicide bomb attack on a police recruitment centre in Ramadi killed one marine and one soldier. The explosion killed around 60 people queuing outside the centre and injured some 60 others.
But no US troops were killed by the blast near the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala that killed at least 60 people and injuring more than 100.
The latest deaths took the number of US military fatalities to 2,192, according to figures from the Pentagon.

[b]US air strike hits Iraqi family [/b]

Several members of the same family, including women and children, have been killed in a US air strike that destroyed their home in northern Iraq.
There was confusion over the number of casualties, but local authorities in the town of Beiji, north of Tikrit, have confirmed at least six dead.
US forces said they acted after seeing three men suspected of planting a roadside bomb enter the house.
The raid has prompted anger among some local political leaders.
US military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson said the men, who ran into the house after digging a hole, were assesed as a threat to civilians and military forces.
"An unmanned aerial vehicle... observed the would-be attackers as they dug a hole following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement," he told the AFP news agency.
"The individuals left the road site and were followed from the air to a nearby building. Coalition forces employed precision guided munitions on the structure."
But he did not confirm the number of casualties or whether a roadside bomb has been found.
Local police chief Colonel Sufyan Mustafa said he believed there were no anti-US insurgents present in the house.
"Even if there had been, why didn't they surround the area and detain the terrorists instead?," he told the Reuters news agency.

'Historic crime'

Ghadban Nahd Hassan, 56, told AFP that 14 members of his family had been in the house when it was it bombed.
"I was with some friends in a small shop 100m away from the house when I heard the bombing at around 2130 (1830 GMT)," he said.
"I rushed over to see. My house was destroyed and there was smoke everywhere."
So far, the bodies of a nine-year-old boy, an 11-year-old girl, three women and three men have been found in the rubble, police said.
US forces frequently use air strikes in their battle against Iraqi insurgents, in an effort to minimise US casualties.
A local official of the biggest Sunni Arab political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, called for demonstrations.
"This is a historic crime and another catastrophe for the people of Baiji," he told Reuters.
"If there were gunmen or criminals in that house, is it right to blow up the whole family?"
Hussein al-Falluji, a lawyer and a national leader of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Accordance Front, said: "Once again the occupiers have shown their barbarism. They never learn from their mistakes... People's resentment is increasing."

[b]Bush plans Iraqi land handovers [/b]

US President George W Bush has said the US will aim to put more Iraqi territory under the control of Iraqi security forces during 2006.

He said if Iraqis made good progress "we can discuss further possible adjustments" in US troop levels.
But he refused to outline a timetable for withdrawal, saying conditions on the ground, not pressure from political opponents, would inform decisions.
Mr Bush was speaking after meeting security chiefs at the Pentagon.
He outlined a progress report and plans for the year in the US "war on terror", and its "two major fronts" - Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr Bush said the plan in Iraq was succeeding - and wide participation in the country's election showed the people were buying into the new democracy.
"When 70% of people show up to vote, that's a good sign. Iraqis showed great courage," he said.
"The election results served as a real defeat for the rejectionists," he added.

Iraqis 'in the lead'

He said more and more duties and territory would be handed over to Iraqi soldiers and police, whose capabilities were improving all the time.
"As these forces become more battle-hardened and take the lead, we're going to see continued confidence in... the Iraqis being able to defend themselves," the president said.
"And as we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we'll be able to continue with our desire or stated strategy that says as Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down."
Mr Bush was giving a clear signal to the American people that the plan in Iraq was working, and by mentioning further troop reductions, indicating that the conflict in Iraq was not going to continue indefinitely, the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says.
With mid-term elections due later in the year, he needs to show the US public that his policies are showing dividends, our correspondent adds.
He still faces battles at home, too, not least in persuading Congress to accept anti-terror legislation, and justifying his decision to authorise spying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/0,2759,423009,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

[img]http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2847/r36357516802wl.jpg[/img]

A masked militant gestures in an undated video released by Iraqi militant
group Ansar al-Sunna at a western Baghdad mosque January 14, 2006.
Shrouded in woollen ski masks in a makeshift television studio, members of
one of Iraq's most ruthless militant groups debate tactics in a propaganda
video aimed at gaining new recruits for the insurgency.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060114/ids_photos_wl/r3635751680.jpg;_ylt=Ai... News Photos[/url]

[img]http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2373/r2125716485wu.jpg[/img]

Masked militants shake hands in an undated propaganda video released by
Iraqi militant group Ansar al-Sunna at a western Baghdad mosque January
14, 2006.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060114/ids_photos_wl/r212571648.jpg;_ylt=Ajy... News Photos[/url]

Salam

Mayor of New Orleans thinks that Hurraince Katrina was sent by God as a punishment to destroy a US city.

He thinks that when America invaded Iraq, this made God angry.

Quote:

Telegraph 18 January 2006

[b]'This is how God punished us for invading Iraq'[/b]

By Harry Mount in New York

The mayor of New Orleans has provoked new outrage by calling Hurricane Katrina God's punishment for invading Iraq... "Surely God is mad at America, He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane and it's destroyed and put stress on this country. Surely He's not approving of us being in Iraq under false pretences... "

Within 24 hours there have been calls for his resignation.

They want him to pull out of office. He wants to pull out of Iraq.

Omrow

Salam

An American Mayor calling black people "chocolates" is terrible.

I think now even the blacks will want his blood.

The Mayor himself is black. Maybe he is the first blackman who is racist against his own people.

Omrow

Now that the Shia bloc has won without a majority what are the prospects for Iraq staying together.

States that have a diverse populace are usually held together by two methods.

One is the Tito way. This combines a nationalist based ideology with strong dictatorial rule.

The other is the Israel way. That is to focus on an external enemy in order to keep the different groups united.

I don't think the Tito way is possible in Iraq seeing as how federalism is being supported by most of the people.

Even if the Shias and the Kurds make a sinle power bloc, they will still nothave enough seats to choose the president et al.

They will be 3 seats short according to last nights newsnight. (A 60% vote is required...)

So the shia's have the oportunity to be inclusionary, or to try to pick up some marginals...