CNN Reports almost 20% of all Iraqis are exiles. There are 300,000 Iraqi exiles in the US. The report claimed that many of the exiles still fear Saddam, many still having family back in Iraq, and fear speaking out. But several interviewed were upset with anti-war demonstrations, saying that the demonstrators don't understand. One exile interviewed had to pay-off Iraqi authorities $2000 to recover the bodies of his two brothers who had been tortured to death, to pay for the torture and the electricity for the freezer they were kept in. The report stated that many exiles had similar stories. One exile stated that only God and America could end Saddam's reign. The report is not a Gallup Poll and much faith would have to be placed in the journalist to accept their claims, but I have been very interested in hearing any type of reports on what Iraqi's feel and want. Sorry, no link yet.
The other side argues where does morality come in when the USA gets caught up in war but never argue against the despots who provoke attack when they are killing these people purposely. Don't morals apply to despots as well? Have we sunken so low as a society that we have decided we shouldn't make others responsible for their crimes? I'm not a perfect man but clearly Saddam has to accept his responsibility as a murderer. Containment clearly hasn't worked for Saddam as so with Trotsky who had the blood of 20 million on his hands.
A new myth has emerged in the pro-war camp's propaganda arsenal. Iraqi exiles support the war, they claim, and none took part in last month's march through central London. So if the peaceniks and leftwingers who joined the protest had the honesty to listen to the true voice of the Iraqi people they would never denounce Bush's plans for war again. Wrong, and wrong. A large number of Iraqis were among the million-member throng, including two key independent political groups. They carried banners denouncing Saddam Hussein (thereby echoing the sentiments of many non-Iraqis since this was not a protest by pro-Saddam patsies, as the pro-war people also falsely claim). They represented important currents in the Iraqi opposition, and ones whom the Americans have repeatedly tried to persuade to join the exiles' liaison committee. "No way," says Dr Haider Abas, London spokesman of Da'wa, Iraq's moderate Islamic party. "When we met Zalmay Khalilzad (the US special envoy for Iraq) we told him we didn't want to give a cover to US military operations. It's not our role. We won't be respected by our people." His party has other reservations. It fears the US will retain control of Iraq long after Saddam is toppled and will not hand power to Iraqis for months to come - and then only to its placemen. Da'wa also doubts US plans for ethnically based federalism, arguing that this will create the risk of Balkan-style discrimination and pogroms, when the reality of Iraq is that every major city is culturally mixed. Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Arabs are found everywhere. ........... Iraqi exiles against the war
Man, I really hate the Right's War Propaganda Machine. It's horrible... oh well, just a few more months untill this regime is out the door with a new one up.
An artcle from the Christian Science Monitor about how many Iraqi exiles are united against the US plan to have a US military governor and our plans for after the invasion. Iraqi exiles
Was this what you were talking about, glynch? February 26, 2003, 10:00 a.m. Voice of Iraqis Why don’t antiwar types want to hear them? By Amir Taheri "Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" asked the Iraqi grandmother. I spent part of a recent Saturday with the so-called "antiwar" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice to be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!" But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine," and "Indict Bush and Sharon." Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war. The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988. We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990. "Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year-old Salima demanded. The reverend was not pleased. "Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's gorillas closed in to protect his holiness. We next spotted former film star Glenda Jackson, apparently manning a stand where "antiwar" characters could sign up to become "human shields" to protect Saddam's military installations against American air attacks. "These people are mad," said Awad Nasser, one of Iraq's most famous modernist poets. "They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant's death machine." The former film star, now a Labor party member of parliament, had no time for "side issues" such as the 1.2 million Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis who have died as a result of Saddam's various wars. We thought we might have a better chance with Charles Kennedy, a boyish-looking, red-headed Scot who leads the misnamed Liberal Democrat party. But he, too, had no time for "complex issues" that could not be raised at a mass rally. "The point of what we are doing here is to tell the American and British governments that we are against war," he pontificated. "There will be ample time for other issues." But was it not amazing that there could be a rally about Iraq without any mention of what Saddam and his regime have done over almost three decades? Just a little hint, perhaps, that Saddam was still murdering people in his Qasr al-Nayhayah (Palace of the End) prison, and that as the Westerners marched, Iraqis continued to die? Not a chance. We then ran into Tony Benn, a leftist septuagenarian who has recycled himself as a television reporter to interview Saddam in Baghdad. But we knew there was no point in talking to him. The previous night he had appeared on TV to tell the Brits that his friend Saddam was standing for "the little people" against "hegemonistic America." "Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded. The Iraqis would had much to tell the "antiwar" marchers, had they had a chance to speak. Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors, would have told the marchers that their action would encourage Saddam to intensify his repression. "I had a few questions for the marchers," Sultani said. "Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the antiwar marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?" Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam's henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked. Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground. "The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnezzar," he said. "These prosperous, peaceful, and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate." He said that, watching the march, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park." Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq's foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the "deep moral pain" he feels when hearing the so-called " antiwar" discourse. "The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs," Khoi said. "The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim." Khoi said he would say ahlan wasahlan (welcome) to anyone who would liberate Iraq. "When you are being tortured to death you are not fussy about who will save you," he said. Ismail Qaderi, a former Baathist official but now a dissident, wanted to tell the marchers how Saddam systematically destroyed even his own party, starting by murdering all but one of its 16 original leaders. "Those who see Saddam as a symbol of socialism, progress, and secularism in the Arab world must be mad," he said. Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq's most famous satirical writer, added his complaint. "Don't these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussein is from the prison to the firing-squad?" he asked. "The Western marchers behave as if the US wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein." With all doors shutting in our faces we decided to drop out of the show and watch the political zoology of the march from the sidelines. Who were these people who felt such hatred of their democratic governments and such intense self-loathing? There were the usual suspects: the remnants of the Left, from Stalinists and Trotskyites to caviar socialists. There were the pro-abortionists, the anti-GM food crowd, the anti-capital-punishment militants, the black-rights gurus, the anti-Semites, the "burn Israel" lobby, the "Bush-didn't-win-Florida" zealots, the unilateral disarmers, the anti-Hollywood "cultural exception" merchants, and the guilt-ridden postmodernist "everything is equal to everything else" philosophers. But the bulk of the crowd consisted of fellow travelers, those innocent citizens who, prompted by idealism or boredom, are always prepared to play the role of "useful idiots," as Lenin used to call them. They ignored the fact that the peoples of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers for the war of liberation to come as quickly as possible. The number of marchers did not impress Salima, the grandmother. "What is wrong does not become right because many people say it," she asserted, bidding us farewell while the marchers shouted "Not in my name!" Let us hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in the name of Rev. Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Glenda Jackson, Tony Benn, and their companions in a march of shame. — Amir Taheri is author of The Cauldron: The Middle East behind the headlines. Taheri is reachable through www.benadorassociates.com <http://www.benadorassociates.com>. Probably not.
First, glad to see such an unbiased report when the byline is: 'Not every group takes US cash. Some worry about their people ' It also appears that Da'wa takes more issue with US intentions and '...we didn't want to give a cover to US military operations. It's not our role. We won't be respected by our people.', rather than being unequivocally against war to oust saddam. The Iraqi Communist Party is unequivocally against the US action (surprise surprise). Most parties on the opposition committee set up under Khalilzad's pressure last week are paid by the US government. Da'wa and the ICP have not succumbed. Pro-war pundits who claim to know the views of Iraqi exiles should check they are not listening to opinions made in Washington. I would wager that the US is financially supporting these other groups to allow them the freedom to spend time creating their government to be, and I'm imagine also to get in their favor. I doubt the parties involved refer to it as 'payment'. And I imagine that the other Iraqi exiles would have a word or two for this reporter.
Even if your assertion was conceeded, that is substantially different than your earlier assertion that exiles do not want US intervention. And the article certainly does NOT suggest they are against US intervention. In addition, its important to note that the article talks about people who want to control Iraq after Saddam is gone, so of course they'll want transfer of power asap.
Hey glynch. Actually I was very disappointed that Bush was interrupting all the TV tonight. Its not that I disagree with attacking Iraq, but I just can't stand to hear Bush talk. He is too stupid.
Let me get this straight, you dont like to listen to bush cause his so stupid but you dont mind him bringing your country into a war? maybe your just as stupid as him.
Did you catch the piece where Clinton confided with associates that it would be a mistake to underestimate Bush? I think it was a link provided by Buck, but I cannot recall which thread.
I can probally spell better than bush, I should be running your country. I would already have Iraqi oil by now.
Hey Cohen, No I missed that one. I never could figure out how he beat Ann Richards, so maybe Clinton has a point. Dishrag, Maybe you'd like to explain how its inconsistent to support intervention in Iraq while not caring particularly for Bush?
Originally posted by HayesStreet Hey Cohen, No I missed that one. I never could figure out how he beat Ann Richards, so maybe Clinton has a point. I think he was surprised at the type of question Bush asked him after winning the election. Along the lines of how to make things work in DC. Clinton was impressed with that, and the article argued that Clinton may have a better relationship with Bush than Gore. I cannot beleive that he's overly bright, but he may have some form of political savvy (but even if true, too bad that it doesn't translate to international politics). Dishrag, ... Methinks that still didn't quite correct his spelling error...
