A Million Demonstrate.. But Few Iraqis

[abu afak]

... And why I will not

Dr B Khalaf
Friday February 14, 2003
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/s...,895397,00.html

I write this to protest against all those people who oppose the war against Saddam Hussein, or as they call it, the "war against Iraq". I am an Iraqi doctor, I worked in the Iraqi army for six years during Iraq-Iran war and four months during Gulf war. All my family still live in Iraq. I am an Arab Sunni, not Kurdish or Shia. I am an ordinary Iraqi not involved with the Iraqi opposition outside Iraq.
I am so frustrated by the appalling views of most of the British people, media and politicians. I want to say to all these people who are against the possible war, that if you think by doing so you are serving the interests of Iraqi people or saving them, you are not. You are effectively saving Saddam. You are depriving the Iraqi people of probably their last real chance get rid of him and to get out of this dark era in their history.

My family and almost all Iraqi families will feel hurt and anger when Saddam's media shows on the TV, with great happiness, parts of Saturday's demonstration in London. But where were you when thousands of Iraqi people were killed by Saddam's forces at the end of the Gulf war to crush the uprising? Only now when the war is to reach Saddam has everybody become so concerned about the human life in Iraq.

Where were you while Saddam has been killing thousands of Iraqis since the early 70s? And where are you are now, given that every week he executes people through the "court of revolution", a summary secret court run by the secret security office. Most of its sentences are executions which Saddam himself signs.

I could argue one by one against your reasons for opposing this war. But just ask yourselves why, out of about 500,000 Iraqis in Britain, you will not find even 1,000 of them participating tomorrow? Your anti-war campaign has become mass hysteria and you are no longer able to see things properly.

Locum consultant neurologist, London

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/st...895397,00.html

[takeo]

actually in the demonstration in france there was a large representation of the Iraqi community in exile. They as well resist the call for war against the motherland, even if most of them belong to the Iraqi opposition.
This demonstrations are not in support of Saddam, everyone knows he's a dictator, as so many other dictators in the world. People however oppose the idea that iraq is a greater danger to the world than other "roughe" countries and that war is inevitable to protect the national security of Western countries, that inspections do not work and iraq has rejected the sc-resolution. That's BS, pure and simple.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by takeo
actually in the demonstration in france there was a large representation of the Iraqi community in exile. They as well resist the call for war against the motherland, even if most of them belong to the Iraqi opposition.
This demonstrations are not in support of Saddam, everyone knows he's a dictator, as so many other dictators in the world. People however oppose the idea that iraq is a greater danger to the world than other "roughe" countries and that war is inevitable to protect the national security of Western countries, that inspections do not work and iraq has rejected the sc-resolution. That's BS, pure and simple.

Yes, but France provided a safe harbor for Ayatollah Khomenei, so it's safe to presume the Iraqis exiled in France are Islamists and other extremists who simply want to replace one form of dictatorship with another.

Oh, everyone knows Saddam is a dictator, but the message sent yesterday was loud and clear: "Oppose Bush and defend Saddam."

Predictably, the Iraqi regime is gloating today.

And nothing could give more encouragement to Islamist terrorists.

One can only imagine what the terrorists are saying... "See, the West is divided and we are winning." or perhaps "It will only take one more 9/11/01 to cause Western society to implode."

[takeo]

No, you got it all wrong. The message to the Islamic world is that the West in general, and the population, is not responsable for the upcoming massacre in Iraq, but only a few lunatics in the White House and Downstreet.
The message was clear to anyone willing to listen: yes we dislike Saddam (and Bush), BUT there is currently absolutely no reason, no legitimation to attack Iraq and kill many Iraqi's, except for oil and American economical and geo-strategical interests.

And the french Iraqi in exile are not all belonging to the Shiite opposition (the strongest anti-Saddam opposition, if you like it or not, all over the world), some belong to the communist party, to the Kurdish parties (who are afraid Turkey will take advantage to invade northern Iraq) and to the liberal opposition.

so if i understand well opposing Saddam isn't enough for you, it has to be pro-us opposition... Gee, I'm sure the next American installed government will be real democratic

[Mediocrates]

.

[danholo]

I would've liked to see banners such as: "No war on Iraq; Assassinate Saddam."

[cerulean]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...580666,00.html
E-mail gave Blair his passion
By Melissa Kite and Michelle Henery

TONY BLAIR based an impassioned defence of military action on a personal e-mail written by an exiled 19-year-old Iraqi student at Cambridge. . . .
In her e-mail, Ms Kashi, from northwest London, described the anti-war movement as “misjudged and misplaced”.

She wrote: “You may feel that America is trying to blind you from seeing the truth about its real reasons for an invasion. I must argue that, in fact, it is you who are still blind to the bigger truths in Iraq.

“Saddam has murdered more than a million Iraqis over the past 30 years; are you willing to allow him to kill another million?” Ms Kashi was born in Kuwait after her parents sought refuge from Saddam’s persecution. The family had to flee to Britain when Saddam had the Kuwaitis deport Iraqi men to Baghdad. On the border he had those returning killed. She stated: “We were lucky. We made it safely to Britain. My father was lucky — his brother was caught trying to escape, and tortured. So here I am, 19 years later, never having set foot in the country of my parents.”

She attacked the West for its role in arming Saddam in the past, but she also called into question the motives of the peace movement. “Why is it now — at the very time that the Iraqi people are being given real hope, however slight and however precarious, that they can live in an Iraq that is free of the horrors partly described in this e-mail — that you deem it appropriate to voice your disillusions with America’s policy in Iraq?

“Do not use the Iraqi people as a pawn in your game for moral superiority — when you allow a monster like Saddam to rule for 30 years without so much as protesting against his rule.” She added: “Of course, it would be ideal if an invasion could be undertaken, not by, the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force. That’s not on offer. The Iraqi people cannot wait until such a force materialises.”

[andak01]

I must say my Arabic is improving little by little. What little I can see leads me to the conclusion that the rhetoric is mainly focused against Bush and Rumsfeld, not at the American people. That is encouraging that despite what we hear in our own media, Bin Laden's hatred of America hasn't penetrated very deeply. This is shaping up to be a very conventional military and political confrontation, not a jihad at all.

I said prayers in the largest Sunni mosque in Paris a few months back, and I can say it is a huge distortion to think of Paris' Muslims as predominantly Shiite. For one thing, most of them come from North Africa where there are very few Shiites. But making that distinction is very important. Shiite aims and concerns are quite a bit different from those of Sunnis.

[takeo]

Indeed, but most Iraqi in France are shiites.

Cerulean, this war is supposed to be about the threat of wMD and the threat to the Western world, not about the human-rights violations of the iraqi regime.
And by the way Saddam didn't kill a million of Iraqi, the embargo did.
I'm sure a lot of Syrians in exile would like to see the end of Assad--regime and would have good reasons to think so, the same about the saoudi regime, the jordanian regime, the iranian regime, the pakistani regime, the jemenite regime, the Turkish regime, the regimes in Latin America, Asia, etc. etc.

But that's besides the point, this war isn't about the liberation of the iraqi people.

[cerulean]

And by the way Saddam didn't kill a million of Iraqi, the embargo did.

False. Saddam has been determined to plow whatever oil proceeds Iraq gets into WMD. Saddam would rather have a starving population and WMD, rather than a healthy population and no WMD.

Human-rights violations in Iraq aren't the only motive for a war, of course, but they should be considered.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by takeo
Indeed, but most Iraqi in France are shiites.

Cerulean, this war is supposed to be about the threat of wMD and the threat to the Western world, not about the human-rights violations of the iraqi regime.
And by the way Saddam didn't kill a million of Iraqi, the embargo did.
I'm sure a lot of Syrians in exile would like to see the end of Assad--regime and would have good reasons to think so, the same about the saoudi regime, the jordanian regime, the iranian regime, the pakistani regime, the jemenite regime, the Turkish regime, the regimes in Latin America, Asia, etc. etc.

But that's besides the point, this war isn't about the liberation of the iraqi people.

And what does this embargo look like? Is it 5'9 with a mustache and billions of dollars, 20 presidential palaces, and a bunch of overpaid scientists working on WMD?

Sactions were put in place in order for Saddam to stop using money for weapons and palaces and use it for feeding his people. He chose to do the former. And that's the world's fault?

You are a daily reminder of the failure of socialism and the impotence and inaffectiveness of France, terror apologists and bleeding heart liberals. Thanks, I now welcome your every statement!

[danholo]

Nobody said Saddam killed a million people. The wars Saddam started have killed over a million people. That's what Blair said, at least.

[humus_sapiens]

Daily Telegraph (London)

If this was a peace march, why did Saddam get no stick?
By Barbara Amiel (Filed: 17/02/2003)

The most revealing aspect of the anti-war march in London was what you did
not see. You did not see any messages to Saddam Hussein or criticism of
Iraqi policy.

These earnest seekers of peace, with so many signs denouncing George W Bush
and Tony Blair, had nothing to say to Saddam Hussein; no request to please
co-operate with the UN inspectors. Not one small poster asking Saddam to
disarm or destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps somewhere in
that million people there were some bravely asking him to "Leave Iraq and
prevent war", but I could not find them.

If this were a genuine anti-war demonstration, why, along with demands on
the British and Americans, would there be no demands of the other party to
the conflict - Iraq? Commentators on the march were taken by the good order
of it. I was taken by the sheer wickedness or naivete.

All those nice middle-aged people from middle England with their children
bundled up against the cold, marching for peace; did they have nothing to
say to the party that had ignored 17 UN resolutions? A similar silence
existed in all the anti-war marches in Europe. One either has to question
the good faith of the marchers - or their brains.

Television gave us brief interviews with "ordinary" people marching. ITV's
Mrs Noon on the peace train from Stockport had never marched before, but
she had work experience dealing with "challenging" children and adults,
which she compared with dealing with Saddam. "The first rule," she said,
"is to be non-confrontational." The TV cameras cut to the "----ing Bush"
and "Stuff Your Imperialism" signs stacked in the train compartment.

A colleague I met at the march said he had counted only two or three
anti-Israeli signs. "Torture, Murder, Ethnic Cleansing!!! Welcome to
Israel" was the wording of a large banner from the Muslim Association of
Great Britain, but that was to be expected. The MAB, co-organiser of the
London march, has a number of ideological and personal links with the
Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest Islamist organisation, four of whose members
assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose offshoot is Hamas.

In fact, there were hundreds of anti-Israeli signs. What disguised this was
the activities of the Jewish establishment. The Board of Deputies of
British Jews, well-meaning but dreadfully inept, had worried about all the
hate signs against Israel in the last "peace" march. Not understanding that
it is best not to help your enemy disguise itself, they had written to the
Committee for Nuclear Disarmament asking it about its relationship with
anti-Israel groups.

The Deputies were reassured to receive a letter promising them that CND was
"working hard to ensure that this march would be free from inappropriate
slogans and chants". The result was that apart from a few "Boycott
Israel/Boycott Murder" banners, the MAB restrained itself to hundreds of
posters with the coded anti-Israel message: "Freedom for Palestine".

Freedom for Palestine, of course, could come the day the Arab world accepts
the existence of a Jewish state. There could have been an independent
Palestinian state as early as the Peel Commission in 1937 or the UN
partition plan in 1948, if only the Arabs had said yes to co-existence with
Israel. But anyone who has read the literature of the MAB knows that now,
as then, "Palestinian freedom" for the MAB is achieved only at the expense
of eliminating a Jewish state in the Middle East. All that the complaints
of the British Board of Deputies had done was to make the MAB respectable
to the ignorant.

In the end, under the guise of peace, this march was essentially an
anti-America, anti-free enterprise, anti-Israel display. A similar approach
appeared to have taken hold in the various other "peace" marches in Tokyo,
Athens, Paris, Berlin and Madrid.

Looking at the news clips of jubilant Europeans marching behind banners
saying "Death to Uncle Sam" shows how much the zeitgeist towards America
has changed. I can remember the good-natured humour of the film The Mouse
That Roared. America was seen then as the generous saviour of Europe and
the welcomed guarantor of freedom. In that 1959 film, a Ruritanian prime
minister, played by Peter Sellers, declared war on the United States in
order to get American aid. These days the mouse roars to scare or blackmail
America.

The spirit towards Israel was different in those times too. After defeating
the Arabs in the 1967 six-day war, Israel was seen as an incredible success
story by virtually all observers - intellectually, morally and practically.
The country was the recreation of a lost state, made all the more credible
by its unique parentage - a democratic decision of the world through a UN
vote.

One didn't have to be a Zionist in 1967 to list Israel's achievements. That
small nation had revived a dead language for the first time in history,
absorbed a million and a half people from both Europe and the Orient in 19
years and had made the desert fertile. It had no oil, its waters were
insufficient and vulnerable to Arab diversion, and it had never had one day
of peace.

Within five hours of its birth, it faced declarations of war by all its
Arab neighbours. With no military background or weaponry to speak of, and
facing the British-trained Jordanian army among others, it had defeated its
enemies in 1948, 1956 and again in 1967. Israel was a classic success
story.

Up to 1967, the Jews gave the impression of being the underdog against
impossible odds, and the winner. Both those components are attractive to
people and to nations. But the sheer weight of size and demographics on the
Arab side and the willingness of Arabs to employ terrorism in the West
began to eat away at this perception. Gradually, the tables turned. The
sense that in the long run the Arabs would prevail gathered steam. It
became the Arabs' turn to be carried on the double wings of underdog and
winner status.

Israel is now seen as a surrogate for the United States and so destroying
it has the added thrill of throwing sand in America's face. For centuries,
the Arab world has faced the humiliation of punching below its weight.
Given the value in its culture of the romantic masculine virtues of martial
prowess and dominance, this realisation that its culture is regarded as
backward and insignificant has created much resentment.

The Islamists have come along with the message that, if Islam's large
population and wealth could be fused with its mystical fundamentalism, they
would create the same fanatical strength that made rising empires from
Christendom to Japan pre-eminent. In this climate, America and Israel are
viewed as obstacles to an Arab renaissance.

Laying out the world's changing attitudes to Israel and America so barely,
makes it sound like a conscious decision - which is absurd. But changes in
the spirit of the times are as difficult to explain as those immense flocks
of birds you see sitting on some great African lake, hundreds of thousands
of them at a time, till all of a sudden, successively, they fly up and turn
in a specific direction. One can never analyse which bird started it and
how it became this incredible rush. All you see is the result.

One senses that the Islamists, with a billion Muslims in the world, and
access to great riches (with some partial success in Iran and Afghanistan,
where they defeated the Soviets, albeit with American help), now feel that
they may be able to reassert themselves - and the Caliphate.

The world waits, unsure what to do as Muslims hesitate, poised on vast
lakes of oil, ready to fly in some direction. The world hedges its bets by
backing the Palestinians, who may benefit by any resurgence of Islam.

And one of the reasons many people sense how important it is for America
and her allies to be successful against the regime of Saddam Hussein -
quite apart from all other valid reasons - is that a perception that the
side with the momentum, the winning side, is the Islamist-terrorist side,
must be broken.

It is a dangerous and self-fulfilling prophecy that can cause untold
bloodshed and tyranny in the world. There are infinitely better, more
tolerant, less bloody ways forward for the Arab people. But the West is not
yet a paper tiger, even if nearly one million of its inhabitants meekly
followed behind those meretricious paper slogans held high in Hyde Park on
Saturday afternoon.

[takeo]

this text is completely besides the point and proves that the autor has no idea about what the peace-demonstrations are really about, or preferes not to think about it.
This demonstrations are not primarily anti-American or anti-Israel, even if perhaps a minority of the demonstrators were. This demonstrations were even less pro-Saddam (didn't see a single Saddam portrait...). The demonstrators however know that currently Saddam is cooperating with the weapons inspectors (even Hans blix said so in his latest report) in order to avoid a war while the US is still searching for excuses to invade Iraq and kill 100's of 1000's of people in a totally unnecessary war. This is unacceptable. Saddam is a dictators but being a dictator isn't enough to invade a country, if not we could invade half the globe...
and Saddam isn't the most dangerous islamic country, invading Saddam is not a statement to the perpetrators of september 11th, on the contrary those would love such an action witch would certainly increase their popularity AND eliminate an old ennemy...
people aren't brainless as the propaganda would like to believe. everyone knows that Iraq is the second oil-producer in the world, and very close to the first one, and everyone knows that Americans would love to share that oil with its own companies and lay its hands to it. everyone knows as well that the survival of Saddam undermines the us-credibility in the world, and especially the credibility of the Bush-family.
That are all reasons to bomb saddam, but please don't lie and say it is to remove a threat or to liberate the iraqi people... people could see on television that the so-called "evidences" of Collin powell were nothing but unclear photos and empty accusations without proves.

people worldwide see that Israel is still violating dozens of un-resolutions but that at the same time iraq was embargoed and bombed for violating a few un-resolutions. people worldwide see that the us wants to liberate Iraq but at the same time supports some of the most evil dictatorships.

those people do not want to see harm on the us or Israel, those people are not anti-American (there were even delegations of the victims of 11th september!) they just think that the current us-policy is unacceptable. isn't this legitimate? And please stop this cr*p about "gratitude". It isn't because the us helped us in the second world war (along with the soviets!) that we have to follow the us-policy whoever is in charge in the white House!
we would love to assist America when it is in danger, such as in the struggle against terrorism. But iraq is totally unrelated to this, Iraq is being invaded for totally different and unacceptable reasons. that was the reason why so many people gathered, not only in Europe but worldwide and even in the US.

Sactions were put in place in order for Saddam to stop using money for weapons and palaces and use it for feeding his people. He chose to do the former. And that's the world's fault?

You are a daily reminder of the failure of socialism and the impotence and inaffectiveness of France, terror apologists and bleeding heart liberals. Thanks, I now welcome your every statement!

No, everyone knew that the embargo wasn't going to prevent Saddam from buying weapons, the embargo was exactly meant to undermine the iraqi regime by starving its population, as the uS tried to do in Cuba as well.

You are a daily reminder of why I oppose the American and Israeli policy, guilty of a double standard, hypocrisy, war-mongering at the expense of millions of innocent people, unreasonable gready attitude, and imperialism.

False. Saddam has been determined to plow whatever oil proceeds Iraq gets into WMD. Saddam would rather have a starving population and WMD, rather than a healthy population and no WMD.

Human-rights violations in Iraq aren't the only motive for a war, of course, but they should be considered.

that's not true, even hans blix said that Iraq probably doesn't have WMD, and i think he's in a much better position to know than any of you.

I've been to Iraq, the government is doing its best to maintain the quality social services of before the Gulf-war but it is really hopeless, since the embargo even blocks a lot of medicines and some products vital for the economy such as concrete.
What's more is that Iraq needs to pay a lot of the "oil-for-food" for "compensation" of the Gulf-war. I think after 10 years this is a bit exaggerated, especially since Kouweit is an extremely wealthy country and doesn't need it...
You can import food, but if the economy isn't working people will continue to suffer, and the economy can't work properly with the embargo in place. I've spoken to French investors who said you have to have an iron mind to overcome the difficulties and bureaucracy instituted by the embargo.
iraq had one of the best health-situation in the middle East before the gulf-war, and also more than 90% of the women could read and write. (still women do share an important position in iraqi society, which is exceptional in the middle East and another sign that iraq isn't a fundamentalist country)

Let me remind you that France on numerous occasions tried to ease the embargo or even lift it, but always there was a US and Brittish veto. So in fact the americans and brittish were responsible for the million iraqi death...
let me also remind you that weapons inspectors didn't find any wMD since the mid 90's AND that the palaces of saddam were mostly build before the Gulf-war.

But of course the iraqi regime isn't totally innocent either. what bothers me and many iraqi is that many illegal oil-sale to Syria and Turkey (illegal because of the embargo of course) didn't benefit the population but some highranking mobsters. this is also a consequence of the embargo, since the black market and embargoes always benefits criminal people and makes official controll impossible, everywhere on earth.



human rights violations can't legitimise a war cerulean, if not we shouldn't start in Iraq but rather we should start invading some African or latinamerican countries...
The human rights record of Saoudi arabia, according to ai, is worse than iraq's...

[danholo]

You are a daily reminder of why I oppose the American and Israeli policy, guilty of a double standard, hypocrisy, war-mongering at the expense of millions of innocent people, unreasonable gready attitude, and imperialism.

You're a daily reminder of why I oppose anti-Israeli people. Israel wants to live in peace. So do the Palestinians but supporting Hamas won't bring Israel to its knees and surrender. A band of terrorists want to destroy Israel and you complain about Israel when it tries to defend itself.

Nothing Israel does at the moment are obstacles to peace. Settlements can be dismantled and/or evacuated. This is only a matter of discussion at the negotiation table. Violence however must stop and the terrorists are the ones perpetrating it. They attack, Israel retaliates against the terrorist and they vow revenge and blow up a bus with civilians inside and again the IDF retaliates by attacking the terrorists - not by blowing up a Kebab-stand or a school bus.

Israeli policy is for peace but you don't negotiate with terrorists. It's sad that you still don't understand why.

I'm glad to see though that some negotiations have started to get under way. Slowly, but surely, something positive might happen for a change.