Insurgentjg

In this article Ray McGovern has openly criticized the policies of American government regarding invasion in Iraq. He has described the after maths of war and the condition of the people who suffer in it.In the beginning he says the truth has finally been revealed, George.W.Bush has admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed simply to have control over Iraq’s oil resources which is contrary to his previous justifications of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and links with AL Qaeda.In the eyes of America oil and military bases are well worth the indignity of troops casualties. It’s a truth acknowledged by majority of them that a few soldiers killed every week is a very minor price to pay for oil the need. He says that it is easier for them to parrot the administrations dishonesty than to confront the reality that they are bringing death and destruction not only in Iraq but to their own fellow citizens as well.The war not only affects common people but also veterans as soldiers are retarded physically and mentally. Veteran’s administration documents show that nearly 264,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have been treated to VA hospitals also including 100,000 mentally disturbed. The expenditure on such treatments is estimated to $700 billion for the next 40 years.The iniquities of war have been widened the inequalities in the society. According to Manuel Garcia, JR,” War is a Racket”.“War is just a racket”. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group inside know what it is about. it is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.I believe in adequate at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and soldiers follow the flag.There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defence of our homes and the other is Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that military gang is blind too. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “big boss” super-nationalistic-capitalism.”Writer has also described the whole process of surgery and his medical treatment which underwent on the New Year’s Eve. The only one question was grabbing his mind was “why he was privileged to have an access to the best in medical treatment, when many other veterans were deprived of such medical assistance. No one can feel others misery unless he feels and experiences it in the same or different manner.He had himself in his knapsack the health insurance card, with its help he was able to get sophisticated, million dollar technology treatment. The writer has in a very sarcastic way criticised war against terror in which many bitter experiences have been related with the conditions of Prisoners of Guantanamo.

• Condition in stress test which was done to induce stress before surgery has been related to the circumstances of the prisoners in Guantanamo, whether they would survive deliberately induced stress which they encounter.
• Experience on narrow gurney for 20 minutes with two technicians and nurses for look after, whereas the strapped-in-prisoners of Guantanamo neither able to move nor can protest with apathetic physicians and consultants who their best to inflict injury rather than to alleviate pain.
• Two dozens Guantanamo detainees who tried to starve themselves to death for this was their only hope for release. According to many military official detainees this act is taken as “an act of asymmetrical warfare against us”.
• The writer wonders how would Graffy, deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, comment on suicides of 6,256 veterans who took their lives after waiting a long time medical treatment.

Talking about the reason of his disease he says that he cannot blame his disease on someone’s negligence or the consequences of highly toxic weapons but thousand s of Iraqis and those troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan can. Most of the U.S serviceman and woman blame their cancer due to the infect from reduced quality uranium us in large guns and other poisoned chemicals in populated areas of Iraq that lead to cancer. Thousands of U.S troops in Iraq are likely to have been exposed to DU to some degree, absorbing it either by inhaling contaminated dust or ingesting it from contaminated water, food and soil. Initial estimates are that between 100 and 200 tones of DU munitions were used in Iraq and that at least 17 incidents took place during the combat phase that would most likely have resulted in U.S and British personnel being exposed to high concentrations of DU particles.

Conclusion:

War against any country whether Iraq or Afghanistan has far reaching effects on not on the country involved itself (America) but rest of the world is not safe from its horrible consequences. Iraq war proved to be a trillion dollar war of America, their treasury has bankrupted, economy is shambling and infrastructure has crumbled. The only things on an upward swing are the profits of oil companies…and suicides in their military!!

____________________________________________________________

This article is been rephrased from the article by ray Mcgovern, “The iniquities and inequalities of war”

Nothing seems capable of halting the American juggernaut. Now in March 250,000 US soldiers, along with a few British units, are gathered in the Gulf ready for the assault on Baghdad. Soon after 11 September 2001 the Bush administration decided that one component of their strategy would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Men as high-placed as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz had long advocated such action, but George W Bush’s questionable election made it difficult to realise that objective. With 11 September it became feasible. From then on Washington’s ruling view of the world was stark: “Anyone who is not with us is with the terrorists” Bush proclaimed. The September 2002 document entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States, which for the first time included the notion of preventive war, confirmed the new orientation of the hyperpower, which was convinced that its own interests were henceforth synonymous with justice.

This strategy was not a response to 11 September. It was formulated in a document dating from September 2000, signed by influential members of the current administration before they took office, which claimed that terrorism had replaced Nazism and communism as the new enemy of the United States. But terrorism is not an ideology, nor is it a strategic threat, since it does not originate from any state. It is a useful bogeyman, adaptable to many situations and used to discredit one’s enemies. Especially when it can be associated, in a triangle of evil, with weapons of mass destruction and so-called “rogue states”

President Bush has warned that the “war on terrorism” will be a long one. It began with the Afghan campaign and the overthrow of the Taliban. It continued with the outlawing of hundreds of organizations and individuals, on criteria that are vague at best, corresponding more to American fantasies than to any serious definition of the terrorist phenomenon - if such a definition were possible. This war has also helped a number of governments to justify their own repressive policies: Russia in Chechnya, Israel in Palestine, India in Kashmir, etc. In the countries of the North, an offensive is mounting against an “enemy within”, often identified with Muslim immigrants, or radical protestors

The United States decided on its attack on Saddam Hussein’ regime in order to destroy the weapons of mass destruction held by Iraq. And yet, on this question, no evidence has been offered, and certainly no proof that Iraq is such a threat to world peace and security that war is unavoidable. Washington’s duplicity is obvious when we compare the US attitude towards North Korea. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a very real problem, but it requires a multilateral solution, through the enforcement of existing treaties and stricter rules, especially on exports of sensitive material. The United States, France, Great Britain and Germany have much to answer for regarding Saddam’s armaments programme in the 1980s.

The first victim of the war will be the Iraqi people, already suffering from a bloodthirsty dictatorship and criminal sanctions. Responsible for two wars - against Iran, then against Kuwait - the Baghdad regime has been subject to strict controls since 1991. The United Nations inspectors were able greatly to reduce its capacity to inflict harm, but this was accompanied by an embargo of unprecedented severity. United Nations experts predict that another war inflicted on a country whose population has reached the limits of its endurance will bring about hundreds of thousands of deaths. And the vision of a pacified and democratic Iraq arising from the ruins of Saddam’s dictatorship is a pipedream - or rather a piece of propaganda - without any relation to reality.

There are questions, too, about the broader consequences of a new war on the situation in the Middle East, especially the confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians.

_________________________________________

This focus feature is been retrieved from www.mondiplo.com/focus/iraq/r1461. It is prepared by Alain Gresh, Maria Ierardi, Olivier Pironet and Philippe Rivière.

The war on aggression has not only violated multiple resolutions and human rights conventions but has exposed next generations of civilian population of Iraq and Afghanistan to the disastrous affects of depleted Uranium and cluster bombs. Future generations of Iraq and Afghanistan now need to not only contemplate the tragic loss of life suffered in the intense US bombing campaign, but also to deal with higher cancer rates, birth deformities, genetic mutations, contaminated water sources and lost limbs for decades to come.
“Shock & Awe Strategy” of using such deadly weapons was devised by the pentagon’s well known and pro Israeli Harlan Ullman, who heads the navy extended planning. One of his student who was Secretary of State Colin Powell, highly praise Ullman saying that “he raised my vision several times”. “Shock & Awe strategy” for winning the battle field was devised long before the September 11 incident. It was 1996, under Clinton’s era when a Pentagon run National Defense University came up with the concept of “rapid dominance” battle plan. Later it was dubbed in to the shock & awe strategy which seeks to quickly overwhelm the enemy psychologically through the use of military brutal force and to extend the impacts it seeks to scare the enemy’s general population. In Ullman’s words, “strategy would have a simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days but minutes.”
Since September 11, US have legitimized the use of weapons in its arsenal and has opened the door for genocidal acts through a so called “war against terror”. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued a Pentagon’s nuclear posture review which states that; nuclear weapons could be used in the event of surprising military developments. In addition, the White House has significantly lowered the nuclear threshold by removing nuclear weapons from their long established special category and lumping them with all other military options – such as special forces, covert operations, cyber warfare, “strategic deception,” psychological warfare and air power.  In short US has institutionalized the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction for their own good.
______________________________________

  1- Henry Michaels, “US Plans ‘Shock and Awe’ Blitzkrieg in Iraq,” World Socialist Website January 30th, 2003,  as mentioned by Kareem. M. Kamel in his article “A New Haulocost”
  2- Robert James Parsons, “America’s Big Dirty Secret,” Le Monde Diplomatique March 2002

By-product of the process through which Uranium is converted to use as a nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons is Depleted Uranium. Though it is less radioactive then uranium, DU still has a half a life in the billions of years, as it carries 60 % of the radioactivity of ordinary uranium. DU became the first choice amongst all the weapons for Pentagon & US military, as it has the special ability to penetrate deep into several meters of rock or concrete in seconds. Furthermore, when a DU-tipped weapon (usually in the form of a bunker-buster bomb or an anti-tank shell) reaches its target, it is detonated, producing an explosive and incendiary effect.  Burnt DU forms a black radioactive dust which when inhaled causes diseases like cancer and genetic mutation among the victims and their offspring.

Depelted Uranium is a cheaper material to use as compared to metal, Tungsten. In effect, countries using DU are trading off lower costs for higher risks i.e. health hazards and US is on of the largest producer and user of weapons of mass destruction while hunting the targets set by Pentagon. In war on terror, US and British troops have deliberately used DU shells. They breeched UN resolution that classifies the munitions as illegal weapon of mass destruction. According to the report by UN sub commission report laws which were breeched by the use of DU shells include: Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Charter of United Nations, the Genocide Convention, the Convention against Torture, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980. Apart from these, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 also forbid use of poison or poisoned weapons.
During the Gulf war, the US – led allied forces fired more that 944, 000 DU rounds and nearly 2, 700 tons of DU- tipped bombs. According to UK Atomic energy Authority Report estimates that around 500,000 Iraqis would die before the end of the century due to radioactive debris left in the dessert. Birth deformities are found in the children of Allied veterans and among Iraqi children. It is believed that only one in fifty million children born may be anopthalmic but in one of the hospitals in Iraq has eight cases of children born without eyes in just two years. Pentagon admits that approximately 320 metric tons of DU debris is lying in the dessert but some Russian experts say that more accurate figures for the debris is 1,000 metric tons.
Since the US led war and later the UN lead sanction  in 1990, more than 1.2 million Iraqis have died. According to UNICEF report on Mortality rates amongs children during 1979 – 1999 increased 47 deaths per 1000 live births for the period 1984 – 1989, to 108 deaths per 1000 live births for the period 1994- 1999. Whereas mortality rate of children under five during the same time periods, has increased from 56 deaths per 1000 live births to 131 per 1000 live births. 
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1999, approximately 700 – 800 metric tons of DU weapons used in and around the city of Basra would kill half a million people. In the recent war , led by US and UK, forces has used much greater volume of DU. The DU ammunition was mainly used against Iraqi tanks in the desert near Basra.  Much larger quantity (approximately 2,000 tons) was used in the immediate vicinity of Baghdad, which is classified as the major residential area with five million people residing in the heart of the city. According to the estimations death toll will exceed one million over the next few years. Moreover the DU related deformities among the newly born and number cancer cases has increased since the first war, the numbers will rise even higher because of the recent War on terror. Cont…

_____________________________

  Christian Scherrer, “DU and the Liberation of Iraq,” Znet  April 13th, 2003 Also view, http://www.unicef.org/reseval/pdfs/irqscont.pdf, as quoted by Kareem M Kamel

Nations who value democracy for the peaceful world and development of people will not opt to maintain a military occupation against the will of the occupied nation. According to a fundamental moral saying about occupation is that a military occupation of one nation by another can only be justified if the occupied population supports it. Yet all the mainstream media and commentators of the war of aggression seem to neglect what Iraqi population thinks about the US-led occupation of their country. Even when Iraqi opinion is published or makes the way in news is not given much heed. On the other hand US politicians and analysts keep emphasizing on how Iraqi people need the US in their country and that how we will leave when then they ask us to!

A piece in the December 27, 2007 Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Vote on fate of Kirkuk postponed,” by Tina Susman and Asso Ahmed of the L.A. Times, reported referendum, to decide whether the oil rich city of Kirkuk will join semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan or will remain under Iraq central government, is being postponed for further six months. Other major decision for the delay is in the re-writing of a national constitution by the head of Iraqi parliament’s constitutional review committee, Humam Hamoudi. This is the fourth time that target date has not been met to articulate the new constitution. Such delays will hinder the progress of other related issues.While Iraqis are kicking the can down the road, Americans are also playing their part in a process. American funded Sunni militia is actively working in more than 300 communities in Iraq with it volunteer numbers growing day by day. They have been credited with reducing violence in some of Iraq’s most violent areas. But a wide belief about the militia is that it could further de-stabalise the country. Writer comments this is quiet a valid concern as the Sunnis who have adopted the friendly strategy may come up again against Shiites and in the case of Kirkuk, the Kurds.Iraq is somewhat on peace these days and it’s a high time that American pull back their men and leave the country announcing “Mission Accomplished”, as the riots wil rise again shortly. But it seems that Bush administration will not withdraw from the country no matter how favourable the situation is. They are planning to hand over the tactics of ugly war to their successors probably the Democrats.“But what of the Democrats who control both Houses of Congress? Why do they keep funding the war, as they just did again?” There are several reasons to continue with the war of aggression and none of them are pretty. Democrats are of view that they will cash the Bush’s war and get more votes. Running against the Bushs war is more fruitful then putting an end to the war. Most of the leading presidential candidates are ambiguous in their campaigns about putting an end to the war America has waged upon the world. According to Lind partially the reason behind this ambiguity is “because just as the neo-cons now dominate Republican circles, so the Democratic Establishment is in thrall to the neo-liberals. Both cabals of neos favor a world-dominating American empire, run of course by themselves. We are reminded once again that while there may be, at least on paper, two parties, there is one Establishment. It does not look favourably on ending the games off which it feeds.”Lind also makes reference to other mid eastern country who wish the war in Iraq to continue and looks forward for the attacks on Iran. Money has never spoke this loud in any election year. Napoleon once said that “I may loose a battle but I will never loos a minute.” American politicians are waiting for the time to run out which their country have so dearly bought in Iraq. Moral burden of command demands from military to step up and go public and announce their departure from the ruined land. Some of them will get fired for their morally ethical response yet General Petraeus probably will remain untouched once again.

But history reveals quiet a grim moral through out the Vietnam war, American generals are more likely to step up to the trough than to the plate.

______________________________

This essay is rephrased from William S. Lind’s article “why do democrats keep funding the war?” Lind is expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

In his article “Nothing Can Morally Justify the Invasion of Iraq” Jacob Hornberger writes that the neo-con supporters of the U.S. government’s war of aggression against Iraq are still holding their hopes high that some how they will be able to prove the war of aggression a right step of US against the Iraqi regime and the day will come for them to proudly announce “You see, this shows that we were right after all to invade and occupy Iraq and kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people.”
On the other hand associated press is reporting that U.S. soldiers have come across mass graves and torture cells in North of Baghdad. Where chains were attached to blood stained walls while a metal bed attached to the electrical shock system. Here a point to ponder is whether all the things in torture cell really represented items to torture as definition of suffering and torture depends upon each person’s subjective determination of the term!
The article also wonders and questions whether there was torture in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. If the justifications for inducing torture were different from those employed today by current U.S. torturers. Hornberger made reference to the writings of Rosa Brooks from Los Angeles Times who states that Baghdad has now been divided into “cleansed”neighbourhoods, where Sunnis occupy some areas and Shiites occupy other. U.s strategy to keep the areas safe from violence is to segregate them with walls. A wonderfully interesting way of pentagon to keep peace in a society that is been destroyed with its invasion.
America’s stance on attacking Iraq is that “it is because of the love American government has for Iraqi nation”. Whereas hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are trying to flee to neighbouring countries where U.S. governments has refused to let them immigrate to the United States. What a good strategy to reduce the death toll than by reducing the country’s population?
Things were not crazy enough, we now learn that U.S. government is now in forefronts with Turkey to attack Iraqi Kurds in northern parts of the already ruined country. There is absolutely no logic behind connecting 9/11 attacks to Iraq, especially when none of the attackers were from Iraq. Yet Iraq is a doomed country now where million of innocent people are victimised, tortured and killed. Hornberger relates the Iraq chapter to the famous dictum of Tacitus: “They made a desert and called it peace.”
Nothing can ever be able to justify the war of aggression against a country which is totally innocent of the September 11 attacks. Not even the vague definition of terrorism can morally justify killing millions of Iraqis who were merely trying to get rid of the illegal invaders who were in their country justifying their presence with fake and false rationales.

_________________________________________________________ 

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Not having a written constitution allowed Blair and his advisers to go to war without reference to parliament or the public. George Monbiot comments on a rather confusing unbalanced discussion programme broadcasted on the BBC a Friday before the New Year. Programme discussed with Lord Guthrie, formerly chief of the defense staff, and Sir Kevin Tebbit, until recently the senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defense, if the parliament decides whether Britain should or not go for war. The discussion reveals some terrifying facts about the privileges of unfathomable power which lead Britain to become a party to a crime that killed million of people and changed the history of the world.
Guthrie argued that parliamentary approval would mean intelligence had to be shared with MPs; that the other side could not be taken by surprise which means that the enemies will know that an attack has been planned. Tebbit argued that the prime minister can not deploy forces until he or she has a command over majority of the parliament. This way the executive is already accountable to parliament. Once the prime minister has his majority, in other words, MPs become redundant.Wagging a war of aggression is considered to be a supreme international crime, according to International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. It is actually at the top of the list of war crimes but mostly the nations or organisations supporting the point of view are scoffed off where in reality these are the few who stand between us and the greatest crimes in history.
If Britain’s top most officers do not understand the simple idea then what can be expected from the country’s policies. In September 2002, a speech in Lords he stated that Britain has to join US in operations against Iraq, the sooner we strike the less easier it will be to handle the threat. No one in the parliament pointed out that he is proposing the supreme international crime. Later on Guthrie also argued that it is unthinkable for British servicemen and women to be sent to international court, regardless of what ever crime they might have committed. He also proposed government that British forces should be allowed to opt out of the European convention on human rights. The grey heads murmured their agreement. The grey heads murmured their agreement. 
According to the British government both the Commons public administration committee and the Lords constitution committee is aware that decision making should provide  “provide sufficient flexibility for deployments which need to be made without prior parliamentary approval for reasons of urgency or necessary operational secrecy”. This means that any matter can’t be kept secret from the parliament unless it is kept from the UN.
Guardian got hold of some letters in 2003 showing how Tebbit prevented the fraud squad at the MoD from investigating the allegations against corrupt dealings by the arms manufacturers BAE. He tipped off the BAE chairman about the confidential letter that was sent by the Serious Fraud Office and he never informed his ministers about the warnings by SFO. In October 2003, during investigations for the death of government scientist David Kelly, he revealed that a decision to name Kelly was made in a “meeting chaired by the prime minister.” This could have been the end of the Blair’s tenure in 10 Downing Street but after a week Tebbit denounced his statement in a written form tto Lord Hutton. Neither parliament nor press was informed about the retraction and it was only after three months when Hutton’s report was published that every one came to know about the hidden realities. Tony Blair already knowing about the secret took crushing advantage.
This programme revealed that both Guthrie and Tallbot have not learnt much from their experiences of disaster in Iraq. They are not alone; Tony Blair wrote an article for the economist “What I have learned” in which he states that “his critics are both wrong and dangerous and that his decisions are based upon the freedom, democracy, responsibility, justice and fairness.” He added that his decisions were difficult to take but were invariably right.
Blair, brown, Straw, Hoon, Campball and their legal advisors still haven’t said a word of regret about Britain’s participation in the supreme international crime. The press and parliament seem to follow the petition of Blair and British government that we “move on” from disastrous land of Iraq. But the question is that does British government has ever learnt from its prior experiences?
British unwritten constitution is widely referred as the gentleman’s agreement, which allows prime minister to act without making any references. Britain went on supporting its ally forces in Iraq because the common people and the parliament were not informed at the time of decision.
George Monbiot going further on the subject says that “Had the truth not been suppressed, Britain could never have attacked Iraq. Real constitutional reform requires much more than the timid proposals in the green paper on the governance of Britain, which are likely to appear in a bill in a few weeks’ time. Yes, parliament should be allowed to vote on whether to go to war, yes the royal prerogative should be rolled back. But the prime minister, his diplomats, civil servants and generals would still decide which wars parliament needs to know about, which crimes could be secretly committed in our name. Real constitutional reform means not only handing power to parliament but also confronting the power of the hard, unaccountable people who act as if it is their birthright.”

___________________________________________________

1  George Monbiot, How Britain became party to a crime, The Guardian.
2  Ibid
3  Ibid
4  Ibid

 Earlier on this blog a report on water and sanitation is been published, discussing the damages lack of portable water availability has caused to the masses. Following essay is based upon the reports published by The Observer, fearing that 24.5 million people may go hungry because of limited facilities available to crops and poultry industry- catastrophe in making for Iraqis. Majority of the farmers in South do not have access to the seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Government warehouses which use to provide Iraqi farmers have been looted particularly in centre and south of the country. Collapse of the pumpng stations furthers adds to a deterioration situation. Spokesman Barry Came comments that ‘Vegetables and poultry are particularly important because they are the main source of protein, vitamins, minerals and a host of micro-nutrients that are missing from the oil-for-food basket which is also why malnutrition is endemic in Iraq,’ Iraqi farmers have not been able to plant tomatoes and onions, potatoes, cucumbers, water melon, peppers, beans and squash due to lack of availability of seeds, this will further exacerbate the situation‘Vegetables and poultry are particularly important because they are the main source of protein, vitamins, minerals and a host of micro-nutrients that are missing from the oil-for-food basket which is also why malnutrition is endemic in Iraq,’[1] Majority of Iraqi population, almost sixty per cent of them, depended on the oil-for-food programme, started at the end of the 1991Gulf war. Oil-for-food programme was aimed at providing Iraq with supplies of wheat, pulses and flour in exchange for oil. Irrigation system urgently needs to be revived in southern and central Iraq. Unattended poultry industry thrives for attention too. Thousands of starving birds have died which is causing the spread of different epidemics. This traumatizing situation of once blooming country is prevailing for years and recent war has brought the nation at the brink of starvation. Iraq awaits the long lost peace and solitude!

William Blum in his article ”Oh! By the way Iraqis don’t really want us” explains the results of survey conducted by US military hired firm amongst the cross sections of Iraqi society. In nut shell, William’s report states the following facts:
* Until the March 2003 US occupation Sunnis and Shiites coexisted peacefully.
* Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the US military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them.
* After the United States leaves Iraq, national reconciliation will happen “naturally.”
* A sense of “optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups … and far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis.”
* Dividing Iraq into three states would hinder national reconciliation. (Only the Kurds did not reject this option.)
* Most would describe the negative elements of life in Iraq as beginning with the US occupation.
* Few mentioned Saddam Hussein as a cause of their problems, which the report described as an important finding, implying that “the current strife in Iraq seems to have totally eclipsed any agonies or grievances many Iraqis would have incurred from the past regime, which lasted for nearly four decades — as opposed to the current conflict, which has lasted for five years.”
Apart from the above mentioned facts article also refers to another companies which is been conducting widespread polls in Iraq’s 18 provinces and who came up with the results and findings not very different from above. Systems, a Virginia-based company that maintains offices in each of Iraqs provinces, recently released survey findings, which reveals similar findings. One os their report states that majority of the Iraqis believe that “we are suffering more now because of the invasion not when the local fanatics who ruled us before“
The Washington Post added this note on December 10th “In just ten minutes time US did the biggest air strike on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, which invading army considered to be the safe heavens for al-Qaeda. Other media report printed the statement of Cesar Pardo, representative of the governing Democratic Revolutionary Party, which holds a majority in the legislature, legislature of Panama declared December 20th the national day for mourning. 20th day of December in 1869 was the horrific day when the nation of panama was invaded by the most powerful army in the world. US officials downplayed the issue saying that they prefer to look at the future.
“As with their attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003, the United States, with no provocation or international legality (yet raged another war of aggression), first bombed Panama, then staged a ground invasion, killing as many as a few thousand, while offering no believable reason for their psychopathic behavior.”

Critiques of Iraq war are of view that there will be a day when Iraq will again be a free state and will also observe mourning on March 19th.

___________________________ 

This article is rephrased from the essay by William Blum, “Oh! By the way the Iraqi’s doesn’t really want us”

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World’s Only Super Power. and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir.