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]
[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ] [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] In a message dated 4/22/04 10:26:21 AM US Mountain Standard Time, yasser@iprospect.org.uk writes: > That's interesting, you obviously haven't seen the polls done by the BBC > and ABC which showed Ibrahim Jafari of the Dawa party, who is an IGC member, > toping the poll (as he seems to have done in most polls). You begin by suggesting that the "only way to get past" the political challenges is to...I must say that I am generally suspect when someone begins a statement by suggesting that there is only "one way" to do anything. George Bush does this quite frequently. Obviously this is incorrect as there are any number of ways of doing...Although the real challenge here would be for the US/uk to "get past" the majority opinion in Iraq which might be counterproductive for US/uk colonial goals, their option is to "handpick" which is contrary to what the Iraqi people want and deserve, which is the opportunity to make their own future. US/uk interests have interferred with this for decades and should surely step aside and allow this most ancient of civilizations to make their own decisions. The racism here is overwhelming. As to the polls you suggest I look at, I assume you are referring to the ones that show that 7.7% of the people 'most trust' Mr. Jafari, the same poll which shows that 3.3% 'most trust' Saddam Hussein. I must say, that if I, as a political figure, could only get 4.4% more people to 'most trust' me than SH, I would probably so something other than politics. 22.1% 'most trusted' NONE! This means that when it comes to trust that Mr. Jafari is a third behind NONE at 22.1% and NOT SURE which garnered 36.7% of the not sure/none vote. I of course was referring to Chalabi in my post, who ranked highest among those "not trusted at all" with 10.3%. Chalabi has weilded the most power and support with the occupiers. To suggest that the parcelling off of Iraq to the highest bidder, which is the point of this, is somehow in the best interests of the country is premature. A careful look at capitalism may show it to be maladaptive, suspect at best. Peter has discussed this as a potential motive for the July 1 political handoff and we have all surmised that profits and power were the overiding concerns of the Bush/blair governments for the invasion in the first place. I stand by my original theme, that those appointed to the council, those handpicked (puppets) by the US/uk, many of those having been disconnected from the country for decades, are probably more interested in things which may not be the most beneficial for Iraq and are certainly not likely to cobble together the support that would be necessary for Iraq to attain her goals of security and freedom. You are certainly welcome to post your IPO articles, but please do not expect those of us with acces to grey matter to buy into the propaganda. Roger Stroope Flagstaff USA Northern Arizona University Graduate Student- Anthropology But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003 _______________________________________ Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-analysis All postings are archived on CASI's website at http://www.casi.org.uk