Libération or Occupation ?
The current war in Iraq is leading me to think about the concept of liberation that is used by the US to explain their current operation in Iraq:
Is it a real liberation or another way to get ride of a current problem but in the same time sacrifying allies and destabilisation this part of the word?
First of all, we need to think about historical facts:
In 1944, the US sold East Europe to the Soviet Union in Yalta. We can just be disappointed that theses countries are now selling their soul to those that betrayed them.
The US in 1944 didn’t liberate Paris. As De Gaulle was saying: “Paris liberée par elle-meme”, they even prepared bank notes for an occupied France. This explains why the French policy is to be more pragmatic on its political actions in foreign policies.
Since that date and I’ll just take few recent examples, I won’t come back on the years 50, 60, 70 and 80,
The US sold Lebanon in 91 to Syria
The US betrayed the Shiites and the Kurds in 91
Theses 2 events after the first gulf war and the US sold the Palestinian land to Israel by identifying themselves in a “terrorist” plot.
In the future, I believe that they will betray again the Kurds by restricting their freedom in the Iraqi Kurdistan as they will need the Turks against or Iran or Syria.
Iran would be the next target as Rumsfelt accused lately that country to supply Iraq with troops and military supply. This country geostrategicaly is stuck between a future Iraq pro US, Turkey, the Pro US Gulf states, and of course Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Syria is also stuck between Turkey, a future Pro US Iraq and Israel.
This will make theses 2 countries a perfect future target for the actual US administration.
But to come back to the question, is this liberation or occupation, what is the goal of that administration?
It is not liberation for sure; the actual war in Iraq shows it:
Lately AFP news from the 03/27/2003 09:10:00
“US soldiers were present in Safwan in order to supervise the distribution of more then 20,000 packets of humanitarian help, […] a small group of civilians welcomed theses packets with the following slogan: “With our soul, with our blood, we will sacrify ourselves for you Saddam”
Some others news states that more then 5,000 Iraqi passed the Jordanian border to come back to Baghdad and to fight there for the Iraqi regime.
Theses news are showed, we have witnesses to prove it.
On the other side, the British forces are claiming that a beginning of Intifada started in Bassorah (this information was denied by the correspondent of Al Jazirra in Bassorah)
The coalition forces also claimed that the power is preventing the Iraqi to leave the cities, which is also denied but by occidental sources.
We are in a stage of intoxication of the information by the coalition.
The only thing till now that they succeed is that they were able to unify the Arab population of the Middle East behind Saddam.
Why is that?
Simply because the US lost the information war from the beginning.
I have heard lately an Arab saying:
“I would like to be liberated, but not by the US”
And I would add that it is because of the blind support of the US to Israel that the Arab population is reacting that way.
and as far it is not a liberation, it will turn to be an occupation of Iraq
and i avoided on purpose the reason of this occupation.
Coming up:
the reason of the occupation
posted by francois at jeudi, mars 27, 2003
i began that blog just to write and show few ideas about current international situation , the iraqi-US war ,
first of all , i m trying to be the most impartial in my point of view trying to watch occidental channels like french (LCI) or US channels like CNN and also arabic channels like al jazira, LBCI and even the iraqi official one
first of all , i would like to say that anything that the iraqi are saying on their channel is being realised (POW or helicopter shot) by on the US view of the war , we see that their forces were allegating that they were occuping Oum al Quasar since friday and seems that till now fights are continuing there. Same thing about the welcoming of their forces in Bassorah , which is more till now just a kick to their asses when they were excepting flowers and rize.
The fact that the iraqi forces are now resisting is a prooved and not to be discusted as shown bellow:
Violent one engagements in Nassiriyah 25/03/2003 14:14:18
After having a long time avoided letting itself involve in an urban war, the American forces finally penetrated in the town of Nassiriyah, crucial bolt towards Baghdad, which they crossed Tuesday in the medium of violent one engagements. More than one hundred corpses of Iraqis, it was impossible to say if it acts soldiers or the civil ones, were visible on the road going towards Baghdad at the exit of Nassiriyah, city of the south of Iraq crossed by the Marines Tuesday, brought back a journalist of the AFP. The corpses strewed the road with about fifteen kilometers in north with Nassiriyah (located at 350 km in south-east Baghdad) and an odor of burned flesh was perceptible in the air. According to an American officer, 40 wounded Iraqis were made prisoners on the road by the Navy. Vehicles destroyed by explosions were also visible. The American forces, which have lost at least ten men for Sunday, had been blocked for three days with the doors of, where the Iraqi forces oppose a savage resistance. Tuesday, a column of approximately 4.000 Navy American crossed Euphrate in this city located at 350 km in the south-east of Baghdad, in the medium of intense combat, according to a journalist of the AFP present with these units. At the semi-day, the American forces crossed the city of the south to north on a four-lane road, their progression accompanied from beginning to end by shootings to the automatic weapon, the machine-gun, the lance-grenade anti-tank device and the mortar, while American combat helicopters flew over the zone. The Americans crossed two bridges on Euphrate located in the city, approximately 500 Navy and about fifty tanks and transport of troops armoured making safe space between the two bridges on a distance of approximately two kilometers. Panicked women and children fled the zone, while the American soldiers passed from house in house to try to locate the stations of Iraqi shootings. In parallel, of the units of Marines also advanced on the roads bordering Nassiriyah by the west and is, but their progression was slowed down by a strong sandstorm. The convoys were to count on the whole to 4.000 soldiers, according to estimates' of the soldiers on the spot. The "essential goal" of the forces of the coalition is to reach Baghdad "as quickly as possible", underlined Monday evening British the Prime Minister Tony Blair. Besides the war seemed to approach the capital, which was submitted Tuesday to violent one bombardments with his southern and south-eastern periphery, having probably aimed at positions of the Iraqi republican Guard. But, terrestrial side, if an avant-garde of the American forces were Tuesday to a hundred km of Baghdad, the large one of the troops were still far behind, facing the resistance of the cities of the south of Iraq. The forces of the coalition were always Tuesday with the doors of Oum Qasr and Bassorah, two strategic cities of the south-east, which they had still not succeeded in "making safe" after five days of seat. According to a British spokesman in Qatar, the troops around Bassorah "consolidated their positions" Tuesday and tried to come to end from "sporadic pockets of resistance", which made at least British a side death. This soldier was touched Sunday evening at the time of an intervention aiming at subduing an Iraqi crowd civil in anger and it succumbed to its wounds Monday. In addition, two British soldiers have been reported missing for Sunday after having fallen into a ambush by Iraqi combatants in the town of Zubayr, in the west of Bassorah. With the need for going quickly for the troops, the "humane factor was added", added this British spokesman. Thus, in Bassorah, some 1,2 million inhabitants are threatened by a humane crisis because of cuts in the supply
(AFP news, translated from french)
The battle of Baghdad, an adventure which announces risky 25/03/2003 13:57:52
On the way towards Baghdad, the American and British troops prepare to penetrate there of force, but this operation of takeover of a metropolis of more than five million inhabitants, centers capacity in Iraq, is announced like an operation at the high military risks as well as political. Perception of what can await in the Iraqi capital the troops of the coalition américano-British, which act without specific mandate international, radically changed since the beginning on March 20 of the operation "Freedom of Iraq". The engagements in the south of the country indeed showed the will of resistance of structures related to the mode, like the militiamans of the Baas party, but as of the tribes ready to defend the idea as they are done of their independence. The neutrality of the populations Shiites, ordered by the political and religious framing of this majority community on which Washington and London counted, also gave the measurement of the mistrust with which the foreign troops are accomodated in Iraq. The prospect for an enthusiastic reception of Bagdadis, applauding on arrival of the American soldiers come to release them from Saddam Hussein, which would have been even quickly eliminated to him in targeted bombardments, seems disappeared today. The determination of the mode not to be yielded under the threat of a violent end seems whole after six days of bombardments. "the Iraqi direction was not decapitated", underlined Monday the Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Aziz. And it prevented that the American and British troops would be accomodated by the inhabitants of Baghdad "with the best music and the best flowers of Iraq", thus promising a strong resistance. The city itself is perfectly squared by the militiamans of the Baas party, of which the number is difficult to evaluate but which is omnipresent in each street and each block of houses of the capital. Around Baghdad, the defence system of the city has been subjected for 48 hours to intensive, supposed bombardments to erode the combativeness of the troops of elites charged to protect the mode. The Iraqis have surprised the experts, making proof in the south of a flexibility which enabled them to thwart the American fire power. It would be consequently astonishing that the army and the republican Guard preserved its tradition of static lines of defence, of regroupings of buried tanks to half, or campings with overdraft, target perfect for the American bombers. This change in the Iraqi strategy had been expressed by Iraqi soldiers before the beginning of the operations: they spoke about the will of "absorber the first shock "and"aspirer "the American troops towards the cities and in particular Baghdad. It is this challenge which will arise for the American strategists in a few days. They will be confronted with the choice to enter Baghdad and to risk a perilous confrontation without guarantee of a fast neutralization of Saddam Hussein and its principal lieutenants. Such a battle of streets would be accompanied by significant risks for the civil population and would be likely to carry the blow of thanks to the vision of an operation led for the benefit of the Iraqis. It could also reveal, like made the combat in the south, the even heterogeneous elements of a "national resistance", which would reveal the operation américano-British as an adventure of the colonial type. Another solution would be to encircle the city and to erode its resistance by bombardments, then offering the spectacle without precedent in the recent history of two Western nations besieging an Arab capital to change the mode it.
© 2003 AFP. All reproduction rights reserved and of representation.
The iraqi seems right now to follow Saddam , even if he s a dictator , as was saying an iraqi from south of iraq "better Saddam then the americans"
and lately more then 5 000 iraqi came back there from jordan to support the actual regime
this is the worst nightmare of the US administration , from liberators they ll appear as a colonialist power more then ever
so why are they still attacking iraq when they are only supported by 45 countries (when i m talking about countries i m talking about government , but mainly the public opinion of these countries are against the war) (so no legality for the war , no direct threat against them , no UN resolution for the war , no legal uninamity and even for those saying that there was the
lately the cost of the war is forecasted btw 490 to 2000 billions of US dollars , so why even attacking iraq?
oil is not explaining everything , the reconstruction market wont be enough to explain
first of all , the US troops ll have a strategic position in middle east
Syria ll be btw turkey , US (in iraq) and Israel , so in bad political situation to negociate with israel
so what will be also the effect on the Syrian dominion , Lebanon ?
the US are going to make strikes against Hisbollah ?
On the other side , Iran ll be also stuck btw the Afghanistan and Iraq (under USA control) so what are going to be the effect of that war on the iranian regime?
will it be more democratic ? i dont believe
what about the other gulf states? are they going to be switching to more democratic systems?
i dont believe it will and in case it will for sure nearly it will be toward islamic regimes and it ll be the result of the US administration policy in middle east
so still why the US are going to destabilise the current statu quo of the region ?
my opinion is that they ll support non democratic regime in the gulf that are close to them for sure
the US troops are on that floor for long , it ll increase the cost of maintening such troops in this region , and besides that this presence will reenforce islamic propaganda for al quaida or other islamic groups and increase the feeling of insecurity for the US around the world
it s not for the oil nor for the US that this administration is making this intervention, their insterest would be to maintain Saddam , and Iraq down , for political , economical and military reasons
about mass destruction weapons , there are prooves that the US forged the prooves against Iraq , and the best way to reply to the US point of view is that their sources of info are coming from the jerusalem post which partial and of course against that country
(we dont ve anymore to demonstrate that Iraq tried to devellop nuclear bomb as israel is owning 200 war heads and wont use it against its neighbours such as egypt , lebanon, jordan or syria but against far objectifs such as iran , saudia , lybia)
if Iraq had chemical weapons they would have been using them against the US troups in the desert but they didnt.
third there are still no prooves of any link btw al quaida and bagdad regime
Maybe the actual policy of the US is to make a clash btw the arabic world and the occidental world ,
maybe also it s to give to israel the leading power in that region
i still dont understand them .
posted by francois at mardi, mars 25, 2003
