You gonna like this Iraqi MP (video) [Archive]

ELCI

01-16-2007, 09:45 AM

@Moledet Thanks for that.

How the "Peace Camp" Betrayed
My Country — Iraq

Before the last war, we Iraqis spent decades cut off from the outside world

writes Naseer Flayih Hasan (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16513) in FrontPageMagazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp).
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/Images/mumford9-16-18s.jpg (http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford9-16-18.asp)Not only did the Baathist regime prevent us from traveling during the Iran-Iraq conflict and the period of the sanctions, but they punished anyone possessing satellite television. And of course, internet access was strictly limited. Because of our isolation, most of us had little idea or sense about life beyond our borders.
We did believe, however, that democracy and human rights were important factors in Western civilization. So it came as a shock to us when millions of people began demonstrating across the world against America’s build-up to the invasion of our country (http://www.eriksvane.com/surroi.htm). We supposed the protests were by people who had no idea about the terrible atrocities that the regime had inflicted upon us for decades (http://www.eriksvane.com/montaner.htm). We assumed that once they learned what had happened in Iraq (http://www.eriksvane.com/sheikh.htm), they would change their minds, or modify their opposition to the war.

How the Left Betrayed My Country - IraqBy Naseer Flayih Hasan (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=2920)
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 3, 2005

Before the last war, we Iraqis spent decades cut off from the outside world. Not only did the Baathist regime prevent us from traveling during the Iran-Iraq conflict and the period of the sanctions, but they punished anyone possessing satellite television. And of course, internet access was strictly limited. Because of our isolation, most of us had little idea or sense about life beyond our borders.
We did believe, however, that democracy and human rights were important factors in Western civilization. So it came as a shock to us when millions of people began demonstrating across the world against America’s build-up to the invasion of our country. We supposed the protests were by people who had no idea about the terrible atrocities that the regime had inflicted upon us for decades. We assumed that once they learned what had happened in Iraq, they would change their minds, or modify their opposition to the war.
My first clue that this would not happen was a few weeks after Baghdad fell. I had befriended a French reporter who had begun to realize that the situation in Iraq was not how the international media or the so-called “peace camp” described it. I noticed, however, that whenever he tried to voice his doubts to colleagues, they argued that he was wrong. Soon afterwards, I met a Dutch woman on Mutinabi Street, where booksellers lay out their wares on Friday morning. I asked her how long she’d been in Iraq and, through a translator, she answered, “Three months.”

“So you were here during the war?”

“Yes!” she said. “To see the crimes of the Americans!”

I was stunned. After a moment, I replied, “What about the crimes of the regime? It killed millions of Iraqis. Do you know that if the regime was still in power, the conversation we’re having now would result in our torture or death?”

Her face turned red and she angrily responded, “Soon will come the day that the Americans will do worse.” She then went on to accuse me of not knowing what the true facts were in Iraq—and that she could see the situation better than me!

She was not the only “humanitarian” who expressed such outrageous opinions. One afternoon, I was speaking to some members of the American anti-war group “Voices in the Wilderness.” One of the group’s members declared that the Iraqi Governing Council (then in power at the time) were “traitors.” I was shocked. Most of the Council were people whom we Iraqis knew had suffered and sacrificed in a long struggle against the regime. Some represented opposition parties who had lost ten of thousand of members in that struggle. Others came from families who had lost up to 30 loved ones to the Baathists.

After those, and many other, experiences, we finally comprehended how little we had in common with these “peace activists” who constantly decried American crimes, and hated to listen to us talk about the terrible long nightmare that ended with the collapse of the regime. We came to understand how these “humanitarians” experienced a sort of pleasure when terrorists or former remnants of the regime created destruction in Iraq—just so they could feel that they were right, and the Americans wrong!

Worse, we realized it was hopeless to make them grasp our feelings. We believed—and still believe--that America’s removal of the regime opened a new way for democracy. At the same time, we have no illusions that the U.S. came to Iraq on a white horse to save our people. We understand this war is all about national interests, and that America’s interests are mainly about defeating terrorism. At this moment, though, U.S. interests are doing more to bring about democracy and freedom in Iraq than, say, the policies of France and Russia—countries which also care little for the Iraqi people and, worse, did their best to save Saddam from destruction until the last moment.

It’s worth noting, as well, that the general attitude of peace activists I met was tension and anger. They were impossible to reason with. This was because, on one hand, the sometimes considerable risks they took to oppose the war made them unable to accept the fact that their cause was not as noble as they believed. Then, too, their dogmatic anti-American attitudes naturally drew them to guides, translators, drivers and Iraqi acquaintances who were themselves supporters of the regime. These Iraqis, in turn, affected the peace activists until they came to share almost the same judgments and opinions as the terrorists and defenders of Saddam.

This was very disappointing for someone like me, who thought for decades that the Left was generally the progressive power in the world. You can imagine how aghast I was when my French reporter friend told me that the Communist Party in his country actually considers the “insurgents” to be the equivalent of the French Gaullists! Or how troubling it is to hear Jacques Chirac take satisfaction from the violence wreaked by the terrorists—those bloody monsters that we Iraqis know so well—because they justify France’s original opposition to the war.

And so I have become disillusioned, at least with the Leftists I met in Iraq. So noble in their rhetoric, they looked to the stars, yet ignored what was happening around them, caring only about what was inside their minds. So glorious in their ideals, their thoughts were inflexible and their deeds unnecessary, even harmful. In the end, they proved to me how dogma and fanaticism had transform peace activists into—lifeless peace “statues.”

http://www.eriksvane.com/betrayal.htm

Moledet

01-16-2007, 10:35 AM

Too many people think that the Iraqi people are incapable of discussion or compromise, but it seems much more likely that a several dozen men use the passions of the youth for their own personal power struggles and that the average Iraqi is not only capable but longing for a peaceful resolution.

Then again, what do I know . . .
He's a very wise person, as you can see he's a Shi'ite religious leader yet he thinks that there should be separation of church and state in Iraq. He says that otherwise there will be chaos in Iraq whenever the ruler will change:

I am one of the people who have advocated secularism ever since the day Saddam Hussein was toppled, because Iraq can be ruled only by secularism. Otherwise, the Shiites would be entitled to impose their ideology, and to establish a Shiite state throughout Iraq. This would not please our Sunni brothers. Similarly, the Sunnis would be entitled to transform the state into an ideological Sunni state, which would anger the Shiites. Therefore, we have no choice but to make the state neutral, by making it an institution without color, taste, or smell - an institution that provides services to all the citizens.

And some more of his opinions:

How come this country (Israel) has developed a democratic regime, although it too has been at war and is surrounded by enemies, whereas the Arabs have not developed democratic regimes, using the existence of Israel as a pretext? How come Israel is not using the Arabs as a pretext for delaying its democratic development, its free economy, and its free press? Are they better, smarter, or stronger than us? We have oil, we have water, we have land, we have great minds - we have it all. Nevertheless, we have backward, tyrannical, and dictatorial regimes - and the peoples readily accept this. There is no real demand for democracy in Arab countries.

[...]

Is there really a conflict between American interests and our own interests - as individuals and as peoples? Some people whine about Iraq's natural resources and about its oil. They say that America has come to plunder Iraq's resources. I ask them: Were Iraq's resources ever yours? Did you ever benefit from these resources? We hear about this oil, but never see it. There has always been a gasoline shortage. Our countries are rich, yet our peoples are poor.

And here's another video of him that you gonna like:
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1285wmv&ak=null
Same instructions as above.

And the transcript:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1285