The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi-analysis] Turning the Muqtada Crisis into a Milestone for Iraqi Sov...

[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ]

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

I have read that the war against Iraq (eye-rack as far as Bush knows) is
about Peace.  I have read that Bremmer is complaining about al-Sadr usurping the
"legal" authority in Iraq and must be stopped.  I have read Yasser's
revisionist quotes in the British media which lay the blame at SH's feet while ignoring
years of sanctions and the piled corpses of children. (there is plenty of
blame for the british the US and SH)  I get that many of the uninformed citizens
of both the US/uk buy into the double speak, but does anyone on this list
accept this nonsense?

The war was illegal, al-Sadr is opposing an illegal occupation in HIS
country, HE has actually lived there rather than sitting in the safety of the US/uk
calling for war in which thousands, tens of thousands of civilians are
dismembered and burned beyond recognition by the US/uk's advanced high tech, surgical,
precision weapons systems.  In fact, as I understand it, if al-Sadr limits
his violence to the US/uk occupation forces, he is actually operating within
international law (whatever that means) while the US/uk occupation forces are f
oreign occupiers and entered the country illegally whatever subsequent arm
twisting at the UN might read.

This was not a war about bringing peace or democracy and anyone who believes
this rhetoric should take a look at what is happening rather than what the
intellects of Bush/blair claim is happening.  This war was about control, about
empire, and to a lesser extent, about profits and war.  The folks closest to
Bush are being enriched on the backs of the US taxpayer and with the blood of
the Iraqi people.

The transition of power is a simpleton's explanation of what is going to
happen.  This upcoming date is a political date that was chosen with the November
US elections in mind.  This date is about Bush winning his FIRST election as
president.  Why would someone who has the ability to think accept the false
premise when the evidence supports this "transition" as nothing more than words
which will quickly evaporate if the IGC opposed any US policy of import to the
occupier?  The troops will stay, the US still has its sticks and strings
attached to the lips of the IGC, the Iraqi people still live with the consequences
and those who try to cast this differently are still engaging in the sort of
Orwellian rhetoric that would put Merriam Webster out of business.

Through the rabbit hole...

Roger Stroope
Flagstaff  USA
Northern Arizona University
Graduate Student- Anthropology

Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit
All postings are archived on CASI's website at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]