The War On Iraq

These days, we're getting used to the idea that the war "in" Iraq is about the Coalition coming to "free" the Iraqi people from the "clutches" of Saddam Hussein. The media is leading us to believe that the war in Iraq is all about the Coalition intervening in order to instate "democracy" and spread "freedom" (a.k.a. Manifest Destiny). Many of us think that the Coalition then faced off against the "terrorists" who are supposedly "foreign" members of "Al Qaeda" entering Iraq in order to cause "disorder" and "chaos", so they may catalyze the formation of an "Islamofascist" state and re-instate "terror" and "tyranny". Moreover, we are led to believe that the Coalition's soldiers are the "good guys" sent to fight and "secure" Iraq as another part of the "war on terror", and that any civilian casualties resulting from Coalition operations are "accidental" because they, the Coalition's soldiers, "regard human life" while the "enemy does not".

Ok, let's cut this crock of political bullshit and put in the dustbin. I for one am not of the opinion that the Coalition is up to any good in Iraq, and that they are fighting this war "for a free Iraq". I for one am led to believe that this war in Iraq is also a War ON Iraq.

Shocking conclusion, I know, but throughout the course of this war, we, the opponents to this farcical war, have exposed time and time again the lies spewed out of the mouths of the neocon duo, Bush and Blair, and beneath it have also uncovered more of the horrifying reality that is actually a war meant to shatter the unity, the identity and the culture of Iraq at its very core. Throughout the course of this war, we have shoved aside all propaganda and saw the catastrophe that is occurring in Iraq.

Since the beginning of the invasion, I knew that this war was a crotch of lies and hatred towards those who oppose America's "foreign interests" in the Middle East. During the invasion phase of the war, hundreds - probably even thousands - of civilians died in Coalition operations against Iraqi towns as the onslaught moved towards Baghdad. There was also massive property damage left in the wake of the Coalition's deathly advance, not to mention their move against mosques and other cultural sites in the cities of Mosul and Tikrit. Finally, there was the significant "liberation" of Iraq, with the toppling of Saddam's statue in the Martyr's Square, in front of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. The Palestine Hotel itself has seen some bloody fighting, especially during the days of the second Gulf War when America intervened against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where I was living at the time (I was a little kid, so I don't remember much).

What followed was a series of what we are led to believe as "blunders" by the Anglo-American Coalition during the "securing" of Baghdad. Let's review some of these blunders, as outlined by Firas Al Atraqchi in New Zealand's Scoop, an independent news agency. Let's go now to:

Mistake #1: U.S. forces occupy and cordon off the Iraqi oil ministry in Baghdad in the first day of liberation. The compound is secured as looters (foreign and local) rampage through Baghdad. Universities, hospitals, army barracks, museums, art galleries, and private residences are stripped bare. When the international community lambastes U.S. officials for not protecting these areas, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld simply says "Stuff happens".

Response: Iraqis now are convinced that this was not a war of liberation but of securing Iraq's oil wealth; they point to the only ministry building not burning - the oil ministry, which is in U.S. hands. Fifteen other buildings were burned and partially destroyed up to a week after U.S. forces entered Baghdad.

This should not be surprising: the first building secured, as Atraqchi states, was the oil ministry. Moreover, the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, outlined by the White House, explicitly states that a Coalition victory can't come without securing Iraq's oil assets. This, of course, can be derived from the fact that while gas and oil prices dropped in countries associated with OPEC, the same price category rised to all-time highs in the U.S. and Canada, as well as in the U.K. The NSVI, as it is so called, is also riddled with holes in the sense that it misses out many points on how to rebuild and repair Iraq's infrastructure. Furthermore, it is argued that looters other than Iraqi people were responsible for stripping bare most of the museums and art gallieries, etc. in Baghdad... even neocons themselves are making the most of Iraq's state of chaos.

While rightwing pundits argue that the securing of the oil ministry is vital to see whether Saddam "was up to something", they overlook the fact that other ministries are of greater importance in tracking Saddam's financial assets, such as the Treasury building, among others. Moreover, Halliburton, an oil company that has ties with VP Dick Cheney, was given the task of "rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure" after the mess that the Coalition created. Along with the oil ministry, oil wells and other depots were secured throughout Iraq, especially in the northern Kurdish region.

Now, on to:

Mistake #2: News emerges that U.S. and British archaeologists had since late last year warned the Bush administration that looting of Iraqi museums is to be expected once the war is over. They urged the U.S. forces to create a protection plan for these cultural and historic areas. The archaeologists cites events after the 1991 Gulf War when nine of Iraq's 13 museums were looted. The Bush administration did not heed their pleas.

Response: Iraqis understand that to undermine a nation's future, you must destroy its cultural and historical heritage. Many Iraqis believe the looting was instigated by U.S. forces and Kuwaitis keen on exacting revenge for the invasion of their country 13 years ago. The world community begins to view U.S. claims with nary an ounce of truth; a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial: "So what happened to Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities? Why did coalition troops seemingly stand by as looters engaged in a 48-hour sacking of one of the world's most important collections of ancient artifacts? There certainly were enough of them protecting Iraq's Oil Ministry building; it made sense to protect that building, but failing to give equal treatment to a key cultural site stupidly gives ammunition to critics who claim the war is "all about oil."

Actually, as stated above, oil is one of the main points on the Coalition's dirty agenda. However, there are reports that the Coalition was actively vandalizing Iraqi cultural and architectural sites, especially in Babylon and their desecration of mosques throughout Iraq.

Iraq and its resources are being raped by looters, Coalition and foreign alike, in the midst of this anarchy. If this continues, Iraqi identity and its place in history as the Cradle of Civilization will be wiped out. They've already done enough in Babylon. What's next? The Hanging Gardens? The Ishtar Gate? Assyria?

Well, you get the idea. Moving along...

Mistake #3: Amnesty International (AI) blames U.S. mismanagement in wake of Saddam's downfall: "Much planning and resources seem to have been devoted to securing Iraqi oilfields.However, there is scarce evidence of similar levels of planning and allocation of resources for securing public and other institutions essential for the survival and well-being of the population," says Irene Khan, AI Secretary-General.

Two weeks after Saddam exited the scene, there is still no dependable electric power in Baghdad, water-related diseases are emerging in Basra, Mosul is on the verge of civil war between expansionist Kurds on the one end and Arabs, Chaldeans and Turkomen on the other, and shortages of food and medicine plague the countryside.

Response: Iraqis now feel that if they don't mobilise, their country will lie in ruin and fall prey to U.S. commercial interests. Millions of Iraqi Shiites, who comprise 60 percent of the population, begin to march in protest of U.S. presence in Iraq. They chant "Death to America" and burn U.S. flags. Political Islam surfaces as the only accepted solution by the Iraqis.

A point that many resistors to this farcical war make is that the condition of Iraq was much better during Saddam's time than it is now, given that Iraq had electric power and water resources in most areas. Moreover, the death rates during Saddam's era were not as high as they are now, with Iraq morgues reporting at most 60 dead bodies being delivered to them each day. This was also argued by the Lancet in its most recent studies.

With respect to the response, we flashback almost immediately to the "Islamic revival" in Iran, which was a symptom of the brutal regime of the Shah Reza Pahlevi. The Shi'ite sectarian government installed during the post-invasion phase of the war is more like the Royal Iranian government, with the Shah at its head. Moreover, Iraqi people are dying indirectly from sanctions and attacks at water supplies and purification centers, whether "accidentally" while attacking "terrorists", or not.

But is that all? I mean, surely the above 3 can be avoided or mended, right? I think not.

Mistake #4: U.S. downplays 'reports' of Iraqi unhappiness with U.S. presence in Iraq. Iraq's civil administrator, retired general Jay Garner says Iraqi anger and resentment of U.S. will dissipate. Garner joins White House officials in blaming Iran for the rise in tension.

Response: Iraqi Shiites say that they are not being taken seriously. They refute charges that Iran is sowing dissent in Iraq and claim that the resistance to U.S. occupation is the will of the Iraqi people. Clearly, there is a communication breakdown between the U.S. and Iraqi civil society.

The last bit hints of racism and a pseudo-apartheid policy. I thought that this was supposed to be a democracy. Does the opinion of a people matter in a democracy? This is the same sort of racism inherent in many Zionist "pioneers", who refused to deal with Palestinians when it comes to negotiations over Palestinian lands.

There is also the blaming of Iran for causing the mess. We've already had the WMD's and other scapegoats being used to drive support for the Iraq war, amongst other products of rightwing propaganda used to accelerate the drive for Coalition troop support in Iraq.

Mistake #5: Prior to the war, White House officials engaged in furious diplomacy with several Iraqi opposition figures, including Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress. A moderate Shiite businessman with U.S. citizenship, Chalabi is seen as the model figure of a future Iraq. The Bush administration believes that all Shiites will emulate Chalabi and come together to plot a more commercial future for Iraq. Unfortunately, the U.S. fails to see the passioned patience of the Iraqi Shiite community who have not had the freedom to express themselves since the killing of Ali, cousin and son-in-law to the Prophet Mohammed, some 1,400 years ago.

Response: Iraqis, Shiites and Sunnis alike, form alliances that were unthought of a few months ago. Iraq for the Iraqis, becomes a common phrase as the people of Iraq express surprise and dismay when confronted with INC officials. Iraqis have no idea who Chalabi is nor who his cohorts happen to be. The fact that all of Chalabi's men in Iraq carry U.S., British, and Australian citizenship does not bode well for the Iraqis. They begin to feel that another authoritarian regime is about to be imposed on them.

However, there's more to this than that. Chalabi is a sectarian Iraqi, and the Iraqi National Congress itself is predominantly Shi'ite. Granted, the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites, but a truly Iraqi government should represent Iraqis regardless of religion or ethnic background.

On the other hand, Chalabi and his cohorts, from Iyad Allawi to Ibrahim Al Jaafari, have been known for their egotistical agendas regarding Iraqi politics. Chalabi and Allawi were both confirmed to have been on a CIA and governmental payroll - like most suckup politicians are - prior to the invasion of Iraq. As stated above, this is indeed another form of sectarian authoritarianism being implemented on Iraq.

Mistake #6: Chalabi makes statements, backed by senior U.S. officials, that Iraq will never be a theocracy and not fall under the jurisdiction of Islamic law.

Response: Iraqis begin to carry banners calling for Islamic law in the country. "No Bush, No Saddam - Yes, Yes to Islam," becomes a poetic signal of where many Sunni and Shiite Iraqis want their new government to head.

This is just an emphasis on the above point. However, I disagree with Atraqchi's overall assessment that the Shi'ites of Iraq are being downplayed in the political scene. There is a constantly circulated myth that the Iraqi people have been united and that they are currently working together. There are many flaws within this theory. The first is the fact that there have been many political parties running in Iraq. The second is that there is an underrepresentation of other Iraqi ethnic groups, including Mandaeans, Chaldean-Assyrian Christians, and Turkomen Iraqis.

The former point suggests that since there is more than one ethnic group in Iraq, and more than one political party, then there is thus more than one militia running in Iraq, each driven by different goals and aims. You have, for example, insurgents fighting the Coalition, and those who are in fact conducting terrorist operations in Iraq. The latter point suggests neglection of minority rights.

But let's turn to what is really happening right now. Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times writes in an April, 2003, article that

The suicide bombing near Najaf is proof that the "Palestinization" of Iraq is in full swing. The repeated calls for jihad from Islamic scholars in al-Azhar in Cairo, the Grand Mufti of Syria and a powerful imam in Najaf show that the jihad in Mesopotamia is also in full swing. In mass protests from Rabat in Morocco to Peshawar in Pakistan, from Kolkata in India to Jakarta in Indonesia, the Arab - and Muslim - street continues to demonstrate its opposition to the events unfolding in Iraq.

The Iraqi people view the Coalition as an illegal occupier in this farcical war against Iraq and her people. The unity of Iraq, discussed by myself before, will be brought up again here.

During Saddam's era, after his installment by the CIA into power, Iraqis were being killed left and right for disobeying him and opposing his regime. Although most of the people who died during his time were Shi'ites, the majority of Iraq's people are Shi'ite by default.

1. The Disunity of Iraq

Ghali Hassan has been covering the war from its very beginning. He writes that the Anglo-American Coalition is

imposing a weak and divided puppet government. The Bush Administration wants to replace al-Jaafari with Adel Abdel Mahdi, a neoliberalism convert with close ties to the US. Abdel Mehdi promised to sale Iraq’s oil industries to US corporations and has no problem living under permanent US Occupation. It should be noted that all those expatriates competing for position are part of the Occupation and depend on it for survival. Any government that continues to serve the Occupation has no credibility among Iraqis. As one US pundit accurately wrote: “Power in Iraq comes not from acquiescing to American might, but from resisting it”. The vast majority of the Iraqi population is against the US agenda and want an end to the US Occupation.

The tone-deaf Coalition members who ignore all pleas from the Iraqi people have already shown their racist and imperialist nature. The installation of a puppet government that serves U.S. interests is just a continuation of a 50-year long pattern of ousting democratically-elected governments that do not comply to U.S. standards.

Hassan further argues that the unity in Iraq has never been shattered before. He claims that

There is no civil war in Iraq. The violence in Iraq is a US-orchestrated campaign to destroy Iraq’s nationalism and liquidate any opposition to the Occupation. The perpetrators of violence entered Iraq on the back of US tanks, and continue to have symbiotic (parasitic) relationships with the Occupation. They were no death squads and militias in Iraq before the invasion. They have infiltrated the new police and military. They are murdering anyone (men, women and children) and anything looks like anti-Occupation. “There is a civil war, but not between the religious groups, but between the party militias on one side and the people on the other”, said Saleh al- Mutlak, chairman of the Sunni National Dialogue Front. In other words, attacks on civilians are perpetuated by the ‘Occupation dogs’ in order to ignite civil war.

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraq civilians have been arrested, tortured, and murdered in cold blood. More than a thousand of Iraqi best academics, professionals and scientists have been assassinated, with thousands fleeing the country in fear for their lives. Iraq is under a campaign of terror implemented with the full knowledge of the occupying forces and their allies. It is not secret that most of these criminals and their minders are closely allied to the CIA, Israeli Mossad, the British MI5 and the Iranian regime. Only the occupying forces and their collaborators stand to benefit from the violence.

What irks me is that the use of the "war on terror" slogan actually masks for what this really is: a war OF terror. What irks me further is that the media has not peeped against this injustice and Cold-War polarization that is dramatically changing the world scene. Sure enough, we are seeing an attempt to destroy Arab identity, even though

For centuries, Iraqis, regardless of their ethnic and religious affiliations, have lived together and intermarried with each other. Iraq has been a non-sectarian mosaic society since its inception. Indeed during the Turkish occupation (better known as the Ottoman Empire), and again during the British occupation, Iraqis have resisted all imperialist attempts to divide their country and to draw them into civil war. The new imperialist agenda to divide Iraq is not different. Just take a look at the way the Gulf States are formed, occupied and ruled today.

This, of course, is part of the "divide and conquer" strategy. For decades, American imperialists have made use of ethnic, cultural, religious and other tribal divisions within opposing nations to their advantage so they may take advantage of the political scene, as well as violating the sovereignities of other nations in order to succumb to their imperialist demands for resources and providing them with "strategic intelligence". Such "intel" was supposedly "useful" during the Cold War era, despite the fact that it's over right now.

In breaking the unity of Iraq, the Coalition decided to set up a sectarian government, and has barely encouraged support for parties that truly represented Iraqis. The delegation headed by "Muslim" neocon (yes, it IS an oxymoron) wrote out the so-called "Iraq Charter/Constitution" (وثيقة). The Iraq Constitution, reviewed by Sunnite and Kurdish parties alike who were not consulted, was found to not represent all Iraqis as it allocated most resources to the Shi'ite body and areas with Shi'ite majorities. Clearly, the "downplaying" alleged by many Shi'ites is easily dismissed: in fact, the only politicians that the Coalition has directly dealt with are Shi'ites. From my experience in following the events of this farce of a war, I have found that most dissidents to the occupation and the government were Sunnites, and that they themselves are finding the Shi'ites and the Coalition at the other side of the gladiator pit. So was the Global Policy Forum, which has wrote as part of its findings,

Once a government is formed, sectarian divisions will certainly make governing difficult, as will disputes over regionalism, oil control, and amendments to Iraq’s troubled constitution.

So, a sectarian government being purposely created by the delegation is not a representative government. This form of "direct democracy" is faulty, and that is why I would rather support a representative republic, which is not what the U.S. coalition had in mind for the people of Iraq.

2. The Ghosts of Fallujah and the Victims of Abu Ghraib

Fallujah was a striking moment in the war, and defined the extent of collective punishment being enforced by the Coalition, known in the Pentagon as "collateral damage". However, such killings are, of course, intentional in nature, regardless of how one sees it. The destruction left by the nightly bombardment of the city proved to be deadly, resulting in tens of casualties almost by the hour if not the minute.

What happened in Fallujah and the Abu Ghraib prison were war crimes perpetuated by the Coalition, and both have gone unpunished to this day. According to the Sunday Mirror, Fallujah was napalmed without mercy; what resulted was horrible: charred bodies burnt by napalm, a substance that does not discriminate. Buildings were demolished in the air raids, and civilians were killed in broad daylight by fighter jets and troops alike. According to the Asia Times, one of the first targets of the Coalition's bombardment of Fallujah was a civilian hospital.

Abu Ghraib was not so different. It involved collective punishment on an individual level. This was certainly no case of collateral damage: it was an outright, racist abuse of Iraqi human rights. Many innocent Iraqis, young AND old, were detained in this bleak prison. Abu Ghraib will never be forgotten by most Iraqis, as it highlighted the subversion of Iraqis throughout the country and the imperialist aims of the Coalition. Prisoners were stripped to the buff, and inhumanely forced to commit sadistic acts; they were also routinely sexually abused and laid on top of each other in a sort of "group sex act"... all for the entertainment of the prison guards at the area. Several prisoners were killed while the prison was under U.S. military control. The routine suffering endured by the Iraqis in the prison will never be forgotten. Iraqis, like almost all Arabs, are humble in dress code, and tend to protest to body searches and the such. Seeing a fellow Arab in the nude does not bode well with most Arabs.

But that's just in Iraq. What pissed me off even more was the actual condoning for Abu Ghraib's actions by several rightwing pundits in the American homeland, like Rush Limbaugh, who also jokes about cruel sentences being served by juveniles in U.S. state prisons and detention centers. This, for sure, gives the rightwing and the U.S. a bad name. While we know that those who were guarding the prison were prosecuted, they were given minimal sentences. Even if they were punished for life, the memory of Abu Ghraib will haunt its former prisoners.

3. "Democracy"

One of the most favorite points argued by supporters of the war is the chance that the Iraqis had in electing a government that "represents" them. Then, how come there were repetitive elections in Iraq and several interim governments chosen at the whims of the U.S. delegation? It seems, then, that the U.S. does not want Iraqis to govern themselves representatively.

On the bright side, at least we know where the neocons stand: they have claimed implicitly that they don't care about Iraqi democracy on several occasions. For example, Paul Bremer, U.S.'s Iraq administrator, said so himself on May 14, 2004. MSNBC quotes him.

"If the provisional government asks us to leave we will leave," Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. "I don't think that will happen, but obviously we don't stay in countries where we're not welcome."

If you thought that was enough, wait till you see what Iraqi leaders had to demand on November 21, 2005.

Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.
In a final statement, read by Arab League chief Amre Moussa, host of the three-day summit, they called for ``the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces.'' No date was specified.

This is not surprising: the Coalition has repeated false promises of leaving Iraq, and none of these have been kept. Now, here's a gem of a quote from none other than Dick Cheney.

Vice President Dick Cheney said the administration won't set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and that nation's forces are making progress toward securing the country on their own.

``A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations and a terrible blow for the future security of the U.S.,'' the vice president said in a speech today at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, a policy research group that generally supports the Bush administration.

So, what's the big deal with all this? Leave it to Chris Bowers to do the talking.

The "spreading freedom" lie is just as bad as the WMD lie. If the Bush administration was seriously interested in Iraqi democracy, they would accept the will of Iraqi leaders and help set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq. However, they are ignoring those pleas, just as they ignored pleas from the intelligence community about the shoddy WMD intelligence. That they don't actually care what Iraqis think of the American-led occupation shows once again just how elective this war actually was and still is. It shows how, more than anything else, invading and occupying Iraq was simply a pet project of neo-conservatives from long before Bush came into office or the attacks of September 11th, 2001. They just wanted this war, period. They want to keep continuing it, period. They really don't seem to care what happens, as long as they get to keep fighting it. The only real Bush administration justification for war in Iraq is that they just want to do it. WMD's, democracy, and mounting human costs don't matter. They want this war. If people keep voting for Bush supporters, this war is what they will continue to get.

There's more: former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CNN that Bush planned this invasion before 9/11 actually happened, which just tells more of a tale about the bellicose administration.

Just for a bit of commentary on the farce known as the elections we turn to Felicity Arbuthnot, who argues,

Registration for expatriate Iraqis to vote in the Iraq elections began on Monday in fourteen countries - Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iran, Jordan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States and runs until January 23. However, according to a renowned expert on international law, Sabah Al Mukhtar, the London-based President of the League of Arab Lawyers, the election is not alone fatally flawed, it is illegal. "Under the Vienna Convention, an occupying force has no right to change composition of occupied territories socially, culturally, educationally or politically. This election was based on the laws laid down by former 'Viceroy' American Paul Bremer and is entirely unconstitutional. Bremer personally appointed the overseers for the election", says Al Mukhtar, thus, far from 'free and fair' and heralding Iraqi 'democracy' they are entirely engineered by Bush's man.

What Ms. Arbuthnot is trying to say is that as long as an occupying power is present that is getting hold of the elections and influencing political affairs in Iraq, with leaders being elected by the occupiers, not the people. I think there is a new definition of democracy: choosing a government that represents the demands of sovereign nations superior to the government. In that sense, "democracy" is a word that replaces the phrase "installing puppet regimes".

4. PNAC and its role in Iraq

PNAC (the "Project for a New American Century" [funny name]) is just another abbreviation for "Manifest Destiny", America's plan to militarily and economically hegemonize the world under puppet governments subservient to it and its demands. If you take a look at its articles, you will find that PNAC's roles are aggressive in nature.

Turning to Iraq, we see that PNAC has a goal of militarily dominating Iraq. No pullout date was specified (see above). Moreover, non-violent resistance was met with no response. Noam Chomsky writes about such non-violent resistance.

Or just to take a recent example, take the elections in Iraq. In fact, they were a major triumph of non-violent resistance. The non-violent public resistance simply compelled Britain and the United States to accept elections. Try to find anybody who writes that. Actually the business press points it out, but almost nobody else.

This reinforces the above point, but Chomsky was also talking about the "Sistani Factor", the prime driving force that led to free elections, which the Coalition probably did not plan to give them. In that case, the Coalition was probably on the verge of installing puppet leaders, which is what they did when they installed the crook, Ahmad Chalabi, as oil minister. This is testimony to the ongoing conquest of Iraq.

This is really nothing new. What we are seeing in Iraq, with the implementation of PNAC, is just a repetition of history, much like Iraq during colonial times. The Brits stayed more than 20 years there. Hassan el Najjar (thanks, Gnostic) tells us of the "divide and conquer" policies of the old colonial Brits, who carvedd up the Middle East in order to catalyze strife and disunity amongst the Arabs in the Gulf (and elsewhere, such as Palestine).

5. Addiction to Oil

The first and most guarded building in Baghdad was the oil ministry. Bush himself admitted that America was addicted to oil. In a State of the Union address in January 2006, he said,

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

However, there has been no sign of deviation from oil as a natural resource required by America. During the invasion phase, though, the Washington Post managed to get a hold of some vital intel: prior to 9/11, Bush planned the invasion of Iraq, as stated above. It writes,

Early discussions among the administration's national security "principals" -- Cheney, Powell, Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- and their deputies focused on how to weaken Hussein diplomatically. But Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz proposed sending in the military to seize Iraq's southern oil fields and establish the area as a foothold from which opposition groups could overthrow Hussein.

Joshua Holland interviewed Antonio Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda". He quoted her saying,

The United States crafted a new oil law for Iraq that provided for production sharing agreements (PSAs), which are contractual terms between a government and a foreign corporation to explore for, produce and market oil. Production sharing agreements are not used by any country in the Middle East or, in fact, by any country that's truly wealthy in oil. They're used to entice investors into an area where the oil is expensive to produce or there isn't a lot of oil.

But Iraq's oil reserves are very easy and cheap to get to. You essentially just stick a pipe in the ground and you get oil. There's absolutely no reason for Iraq to enter into PSAs, but there's every reason for Western oil companies to want them -- they provide the best terms short of full privatization of the oil.

[It's estimated that] Iraq has 80 oil fields. Seventeen of them have been discovered. Under the new oil law -- written into the constitution -- those 17 will be under the control of the Iraqi national oil company.

All undiscovered oil fields are now open to the PSAs. That means, depending on how much oil there is in Iraq, foreign companies will have control over at least 64 percent of Iraq's oil and as much as 84 percent.

The rising gas prices in the states and the lowering gas prices elsewhere are testimony to this farcical war. Chalabi's installment as oil minister should also be testimony to this, as well as the fact that Karzai, Afghanistan's puppet prime minister, is also a UNOCAL executive. Just after his installment into power, he postponed elections and planned installment for a pipeline. This will speak wonders of Chalabi, though he is now under arrest (thank God).

6. Psy-Ops and Propaganda

The U.S. has been psychologically influencing Iraqis to join them. Inciting civil strife is just one part of the whole story. The other is the propaganda machine. Vladimir Alexe spent some time researching this matter. He writes,

Over the last four years, terrorism has increased all over the world. From a regional phenomenon, it has now become an issue of international collective security, the nightmare of all societies, whether they are democratic or not. In these circumstances, the terrorism’s superstars have also appeared. The “first bad genie” of Islamic fundamentalism was Osama bin Laden. However, today his top place in the list of terror is threatened by a new character, considered to be as evil but far more mysterious than Bin Laden: Abu Musab al-Zarkawi. It is someone whose name was unknown three years ago but who is now considered to be the leader of the Iraqi resistance and mastermind of terrorist operations against the United States and Europe. They speak so much about very complex facts that, in the end, he looks like hero of popular stories rather than a man of flesh and blood. Some analysts say that he is an enigmatic Jordanian of Palestinian origin, a legend that seems to have been created with apparent propaganda purposes.

The “war on terror”, described by president Bush Jr. as the “war of law”, defines “Good” and “Evil” upon the Earth, which turns the two terrorist leaders into the embodiment of “Evil”. The propaganda campaigns thus aim at keeping the “terrorist threat” alive in the minds of American citizens. The creation of certain characters, certain myths of global terrorism like Osama bin Laden (former CIA agent) or, today, Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, always chased but never caught by the Pentagon, aims at validating and “personalizing” a war that has allowed the United States to significantly increase its direct influence area.

The purpose of the psy-ops program is to influence people to side with the so-called "good guys", and make excuses for actions committed by the Coalition in its outright occupation of a country like Iraq.

Anup Shah writes an outstanding piece of work, outlining the propaganda machine and how it has affected our perceptions on Iraq. He outlines the lies that led to the war, from the mythical WMD's, to the non-existent link between Saddam and 9/11. My favorite part, though, in this wonder of a masterpiece, is his disspelling of the link between "Al Qaeda" and Saddam. An incomplete transcript was aired to the American people, saying that Bin Laden commanded Muslims to support the Iraqi people against any impending invasion, but at the same time oust Saddam Hussein.

In its propaganda campaign, the Coalition is hiding each and every one of the holes that nullify its arguments for the war on Iraq. Getting the American people to be convinced that what the Coalition is doing is the right thing is a success for the propaganda campaign, but a failure in letting the truth about the Iraq war out.

Speaking of propaganda, there is also the idea that the fighters in Iraq are "foreign". This was actually disspelled by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Christian Science Monitor caught this story as well. The report itself claims that

"The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathizers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion."

The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. "Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the Internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology."

Moreover, the same study found that 6 out of 10 insurgents are actually Iraqi in origin, or have had a home based in Iraq prior to the invasion. This is akin to the Zionist myth that "Palestinians don't exist and therefore there is no Palestinian resistance". Such an assumption is bigoted and neglectful in nature. Rightwing pundits argue that the Iraqi people are with them, and that foreigners are the only ones who seek to subvert the Americans. This only confirms the imperialist motives of the Coalition, and only adds fuel to the anti-war movement. Hopefully, the world will see past this propaganda and see Iraq for the horrifying mess that has been created there.

7. Cry, Babylon

And then there was the neglect the Coalition had for Iraq's cultural and archaeological sites. Bush himself claimed that "turmoil in Iraq is part of progress". Is it the turmoil that destroyed and burned at least fifteen buildings other than the oil ministry in the first few weeks of the occupation of Baghdad? Maev Kennedy of the Guardian outlines a report on the destruction of one of Iraq's most fabled sites, Babylon. He writes of the horrible mess created there.

Iraqi authorities will today take back responsibility for the site of Babylon in a formal handover from the coalition forces. But what they will inherit, say experts, is a catalogue of disasters. According to the report of the British Museum's John Curtis, the site has been severely contaminated and parts have been irreparably damaged.
The report details:

· damage to the dragons decorating the Ishtar Gate, one of the world's most famous monuments, from attempts to prise out the relief-moulded bricks

· broken bricks inscribed with the name of Nebuchadnezzar lying in spoil heaps

· the original brick surface of the great processional route through the gate crushed by military vehicles

· fuel seeping from tanks into archaeological layers

· acres of the site levelled, covered with imported gravel - which Dr Curtis said would be impossible to remove without causing further damage - and sprayed with chemicals which are also seeping into the unexcavated buried deposits

· thousands of tonnes of archaeological material used to fill sandbags and mesh crates, and equally damaging, when that practice stopped, thousands more tonnes of material imported from outside the site, contaminating the site for archaeologists forever.

What pissed me off even further was that the Coalition actually mulled over the damage done to the excavation. We're talking about Iraq's cultural and archaeological history being defaced. There was also the bombing of a mosque in Samarra, and this disintegration of Iraqi cultural heritage is an omen for the destruction of Iraqi identity at the hands of American imperialism. James Cogan also speaks foul against this desecration, citing newspapers that have reported the active desecration of mosques around Iraq by Coalition troops and their bootlicking Shi'ite compatriots. But is this all?

8. "Collateral Damage"

I keep hearing this and I am still not convinced. The Coalition has by far done some of the worst killings in Iraq... much worse than what the "terrorists" have done. While the "insurgents" have used car bombs, mortars and all sorts of portable explosive devices, the real terrorists of the Coalition have used missiles, grenade launchers, napalm, and all sorts of horrors that kill Iraqis in so many different ways.

How do they do it? For one thing, the U.S. has used Israeli-style tactics while "patrolling" in Baghdad. For another, they have used "air superiority" and ignored all resulting civilian casualties.

Jeff Shechter outlines the "sanitization of war crimes" and their subsequent whitewashing. The corpses of Fallujah, thanks to the media, have not stayed in the minds of even the least belligerent of war supporters. Abu Ghraib is now an old story, again thanks to the media. But what about the other killings in Iraq? There have been numerous incidents in which civilians were killed, such as this one in March of this year. However, referring to Schechter's piece, this was most likely white-washed by the media, as the Coalition might have not been actually fighting against "Al Qaeda".

BBC's correspondents were at the scenes of such killings. Rageh Omar told his compatriots at the BBC newsdesk in London,

"On either side of the road in the main bit of al-Shaab district I saw several destroyed houses and apartment blocks.

"I saw human remains, bits of severed hands, bits of skull.

"Al-Shaab is a residential district. I saw people in apartment blocks throwing out their belongings attempting to leave.

"It was a scene of confusion as emergency services tried to rush to the scene."

BBC claims in the same report that their correspondents were unable to locate any military targets in the area. Andrew Gilligan was also at the scene. He reported,

"The nearest military building, civil defence headquarters, is I have to say at least a quarter of a mile away.

"What seemed to be two missiles have landed in a busy shopping parade in the suburb of al-Shaab - we could see the craters.

"Shops and businesses either side of the road were burnt out and blackened with their stock and fittings thrown dozens of feet into the air.

"An enraged crowd of several hundred waved the shoes and clothes of the victims at us, shouting 'Down with Bush, long live Saddam'. "

This same incident occurred early on in the war, and Paul Wood was also there. He said,

"There are four or five cars which have been completely flattened by the blast.

"According to local people, there was a family in one of the cars when what they believe were two missiles came in and struck.

"This is a row of shops and a row of workshops. People were working on repairing cars at the time.

"Residents insisted there was no military target nearby and indeed, we couldn't see any."

Well, we already know of such hapless killing. Firas Al Atraqchi spoke of the same incident. He writes,

Al Jazeera also made it to the scene and was able to film dead bodies being removed from the rubble, some dismembered, others covered entirely in dust and blood.

Images that were broadcast into the homes of more than 50 million Arabs in the Middle East and around the world.

CNN would not budge. They refused to acknowledge that such civilian deaths had occurred. Instead, they persisted in one of their banner headlines that "Iraqi civilians are being killed by Iraqis, not coalition".

They didn't show footage.

Al Jazeera reports that some 40 civilians have been killed with 300 wounded.

No such report from CNN. Instead, we are privy to regurgitated reports from 'embedded' journalists.

Finally, by the afternoon CNN dedicated a whole four seconds of coverage to the marketplace massacre.

Nevertheless, Al Jazeera continues to bring the impact of coalition 'precision' bombing on Iraqi civilians. An Al Jazeera crew in Basra filmed women and children being brought into a Basra hospital for treatment. Most were covered in blood. One child had his shoulder severed. This is the uprising the coalition has been talking about.

(Someone is irked by Al Jazeera. The Al Jazeera website has come under heavy hacker and denial of service attacks and effectively shut down. There are unconfirmed reports at this time that certain agencies may have been involved in the Al Jazeera attacks)

These images are incensing Arab public opinion, turning Arab populations against their leaders, and directly threatening U.S. and U.K. interests in the region.

For their part, the Pentagon says: "Any casualty that occurs, any death that occurs, is a direct result of Saddam Hussein's policies".

The Iraqis who once opposed Saddam, but have now vowed to oppose the coalition forces might disagree.

That's just the beginning. The Coalition has been responsible for many war crimes in Iraq, even during the first Gulf War.

However, let's turn to recent events. We have all heard about the Haditha killings in which more than a dozen innocent civilians were killed. Richard Oppel Jr. of the New York Times writes,

The American-led forces "do not respect the Iraqi people; they crush them by vehicles and kill them by suspicion," Mr. Maliki said. "This is extremely unacceptable."

Military and Congressional officials have said they believe an investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, will show that a group of marines shot and killed civilians without justification or provocation. Witnesses and survivors have said the troops shot men, women and children in the head and chest at close range.

Reuters was following this issue, and found that indeed these killings were unprovoked, just like the Fallujah massacre and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were. Will Dunham writes,

Forensic data from corpses showed victims with bullet wounds, despite earlier statements by Marines that civilians were killed by a roadside bomb that also claimed the life of a Marine from El Paso, Texas, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a defense official said.

"The forensics painted a different story than what the Marines had said," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

The official said there were wounds that would not have been caused by an improvised explosive device. "Did someone shoot somebody just for the sake of taking him out?" the official said. "Bad things happened that day, and it appears Marines lied about it."

The lies spewed out by marines and propagandists were encouraged. In fact, the marines were cleared of this horrible war crime, instead of receiving a joke sentence like those prison guards in Abu Ghraib.

The Human Rights Watch committee condemned the use of air raids with cluster bombs and such senseless killing weapons.

The use of cluster munitions in populated areas caused more civilian casualties than any other factor in the coalition´s conduct of major military operations in March and April, Human Rights Watch said. U.S. and British forces used almost 13,000 cluster munitions, containing nearly 2 million submunitions, that killed or wounded more than 1,000 civilians.

Meanwhile, 50 strikes on top Iraqi leaders failed to kill any of the intended targets, but instead killed dozens of civilians, the Human Rights Watch report revealed. The U.S. “decapitation” strategy relied on intercepts of senior Iraqi leaders´ satellite phone calls along with corroborating intelligence that proved inadequate. As a result, the U.S. military could only locate targets within a 100-meter radius – clearly inadequate precision in civilian neighborhoods.

“Coalition forces generally tried to avoid killing Iraqis who weren´t taking part in combat,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But the deaths of hundreds of civilians still could have been prevented.”

Such tactics have been deemed "careless" and "unintentional" in order to justify the wanton killing of civilians in Iraq's cities. However, this is just a symbol of racism towards Iraqis, thinking that their lives don't matter. However, it is often argued that civilian deaths result from targeting insurgents who "hide behind civilians". Such an assumption is often ignored, as "hiding behind civilians" is not a practical solution for an insurgent who is fighting against an occupying force. Even if they were hiding, the resulting death(s) of the civilian(s) around him would still be intentional because the civilian is by definition in the sights of the bombardier with the edgy trigger finger.

The same argument has been used by "IDF" soldiers in order to excuse their wanton killing of civilians in West Bank towns. But what really gave away the cruel intentions of the occupying force was the infamous Downing Street Memo, which showed the illegal nature of the war. It was also revealed that

“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

I think we're more than convinced that the Coalition is indeed targeting civilians on purpose.

9. Findings from the World Tribunal on Iraq

This is pretty much a summary of what was detailed above, so I'll outline the whole thing. The World Tribunal on Iraq held many charges against the occupying powers, and among them were

1. Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.
Evidence for this can be found in the leaked Downing Street Memo of 23rd July, 2002, in which it was revealed: “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Intelligence was manufactured to willfully deceive the people of the US, the UK, and their elected representatives.

2.Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities. The complete destruction of the city of Falluja in itself constitutes a glaring example of such crimes.

3.Using disproportionate force and weapon systems with indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium (DU), and chemical weapons. Detailed evidence was presented to the Tribunal by expert witnesses that leukemia had risen sharply in children under the age of five residing in those areas that had been targeted by DU weapons.

4.Using DU munitions in spite of all the warnings presented by scientists and war veterans on their devastating long-term effects on human beings and the environment. The US Administration, claiming lack of scientifically established proof of the harmful effects of DU, decided to risk the lives of millions for several generations rather than discontinue its use on account of the potential risks. This alone displays the Administration’s wanton disregard for human life. The Tribunal heard testimony concerning the current obstruction by the US Administration of the efforts of Iraqi universities to collect data and conduct research on the issue.

5. Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter. This is evidenced, for example, by “shock and awe” bombing techniques and the conduct of occupying forces at checkpoints.

6. Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded, contrary to the repeated claims of the leaders of the coalition forces. Women’s freedom of movement has severely been limited, restricting their access to the public sphere, to education, livelihood, political and social engagement. Testimony was provided that sexual violence and sex trafficking have increased since the occupation of Iraq began.

7. Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors, including the April 2003 killing of more than a dozen peaceful protestors in Falluja.

8. Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment, on the people of Iraq. Repeated testimonies pointed to “snatch and grab” operations, disappearances and assassinations.

9. Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Degrading treatment includes subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to acts of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination, as well as denying Iraqi soldiers Prisoner of War status as required by the Geneva Conventions. Abundant testimony was provided of unlawful arrests and detentions, without due process of law. Well known and egregious examples of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment occurred in Abu Ghraib prison as well as in Mosul, Camp Bucca, and Basra. The employment of mercenaries and private contractors to carry out torture has served to undermine accountability.

10. Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied, in violation of international covenants on the responsibilities of occupying powers, in order to amass illegal profits (through such measures as Order 39, signed by L. Paul Bremer III for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which allows foreign investors to buy and takeover Iraq’s state-owned enterprises and to repatriate 100 percent of their profits and assets at any point) and to control Iraq’s oil. Evidence was presented of a number of corporations that had profited from such transactions.

11. Willfully devastating the environment, contaminating it by depleted uranium (DU) weapons, combined with the plumes from burning oil wells, as well as huge oil spills, and destroying agricultural lands. Deliberately disrupting the water and waste removal systems, in a manner verging on biological-chemical warfare. Failing to prevent the looting and dispersal of radioactive material from nuclear sites. Extensive documentation is available on air and water pollution, land degradation, and radioactive pollution.

12. Failing to protect humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq by allowing the looting of museums and established historical sites and positioning military bases in culturally and archeologically sensitive locations. This took place despite prior warnings from UNESCO and Iraqi museum officials.

13. Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media, such as newspapers (e.g., al-Hawza, al-Mashriq, and al-Mustaqila) and radio stations (Baghdad Radio), the shutting down of the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera Television, targeting international journalists, imprisoning and killing academics, intellectuals and scientists.

14. Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions, including holding more than 500 people at Guantánamo Bay without charging them or allowing them any access to legal protection, and using “extraordinary renditions” to send people to be tortured in other countries known to commit human rights abuses and torture prisoners.

15. Committing a crime against peace by violating the will of the global anti-war movement. In an unprecedented display of public conscience millions of people across the world stood in opposition to the imminent attack on Iraq. The attack rendered them effectively voiceless. This amounts to a declaration by the US government and its allies to millions of people that their voices can be ignored, suppressed and silenced with complete impunity.

16. Engaging in policies to wage permanent war on sovereign nations. Syria and Iran have already been declared as potential targets. In declaring a “global war on terror,” the US government has given itself the exclusive right to use aggressive military force against any target of its choosing. Ethnic and religious hostilities are being fueled in different parts of the world. The US occupation of Iraq has further emboldened the Israeli occupation in Palestine and increased the repression of the Palestinian people. The focus on state security and the escalation of militarization has caused a serious deterioration of human security and civil rights across the world.

Quite an apt summary, I might add.

10. Ethnic Cleansing in Iraq

In addition to the ongoing violence, nothing is being done to curb the ethnic cleansing and displacement of Iraqis from their homes. According to a new resource on Iraq, Electronic Iraq,

Nearly 180,000 Iraqis have now been displaced due to ongoing sectarian violence, an increase of about 80,000 from previous figures, said government officials.

According to Mowafaq Abdul-Raof, a spokesman for the Ministry of Displacement and Migration, more than 17,000 families are now registered as homeless by the ministry. An additional 5,000, Abdul-Raof added, had found refuge with relatives in less effected areas.

The largest number of displaced families is from Baghdad, at about 3,718. Of these, an estimated 1,500 have relocated to Samawa; 1,091 to al-Amara; 966 to al-Qut; 713 to Basra; 765 to Nassiriya; and 300 to Ramadi. According to ministry figures, a further 2,113 families have relocated from Falluja and Samarra to Kerbala. Baqouba, a mixed city some 60km northeast of Baghdad, has received the largest influx of displaced families from various locations, at 12,528. Tikrit has also received 117 displaced families, Kirkuk 190 and Mosul 44.

Sectarian hostility erupted in earnest following a 22 February attack on a revered Shi'ite shrine in Samarra, some 120km north of Baghdad. The attack triggered a spate of sectarian reprisals between the country's major Muslim sects - Sunnis and Shi'ites -and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. "The numbers of displaced will continue to rise if tough measures aren't taken by the government against the militants, whether Sunni or Shi'ite," said Abdul-Raof.

Mahmod Thiab, a 44-year-old Shi'ite farmer, was forced to leave his 20-acre orchard in the Sunni-dominated city of Samarra and flee to the southern city of Qadissiyah, some 160km south of Baghdad, after militants killed his 15-year old son. "Now we're living in a tent," said Thiab, a father of nine. "We need the government to find a solution."

Death threats also forced Sheikh Awad Hamoud al-Naser, a 52-year-old Sunni Muslim, to flee his hometown of Basra, some 600km south of Baghdad, to a camp run by the Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) in the Zaobaa district of the capital. "A Shi'ite militia affiliated with the government forced us to flee our homes and jobs," said al-Naser.

Notice the last bolded part. Since the displacement has something to do with the Coalition-supported government, it has something to do with the Coalition. What's ironic is that although government spokesmen have spoken out against such intra-racism, nothing has been done. Moreover, Sunnites are the majority of people being displaced, considering the terrorist operations being carried out by the death squads of the Shi'ite governments that preceded the current one.

This was confirmed by the London Times: the Iraqi police has been confirmed linked to this ethnic strife, and thus forced emigrations are taking place. However, Iraq's Christians are also being displaced because of the ongoing violence. Patrick Cockburn of The Independent wrote about an instance of this war crime.

Khanaqin, North-East Iraq. The state of Iraq now resembles Bosnia at the height of the fighting in the 1990s when each community fled to places where its members were a majority and were able to defend themselves. "Be gone by evening prayers or we will kill you," warned one of four men who called at the house of Leila Mohammed, a pregnant mother of three children in the city of Baquba, in Diyala province north-east of Baghdad. He offered chocolate to one of her children to try to find out the names of the men in the family.

However, the perpetrators of such crimes, although numerous, are also involved with the brutal Shi'ite government, through which the Coalition has incited civil strife (see above). Ethnic cleansing, at its worst, will shatter the demographic diversity of Iraq and severely alter its cultural and social affairs to degrees that will turn displaced Iraqis into refugees living in their own lands.

I want this crime, amongst all others, to stop first and foremost before all others can be prevented.

Conclusion

The Coalition has damaged Iraq's infrastructure... destroyed its cultural heritage... killed many of its people... stole much of its oil resources... shattered the security and unity of the country... lied countless times... covered up its crimes... and incited strife and trouble in the region. This is not a "liberation", but an outright war of aggression against Iraq and its people. Don't believe the so-called "repetitive blunders" being carried out by the Coalition.

However, to avoid generalizations, I know that there are a lot of people out there who support this war, but also want to see a unified Iraq for Iraqis only, and I commend them at least for that bit.

I will still remain an opponent to this invasion... this occupation. And so can you. Take action. Write to your representatives. Protest, and engage in activism. Our words will be heard one day. Pray with me that this war ends with the pulling out of troops, the unification of Iraq, the restoration of its heritage, the rebuilding of its infrastructure, the end of violence... and with all war criminals, from the "superior officers" to the heads of state be strung up on coat-hanger wires for all the world to see for what they have done to Iraq.

Salaam, from
Saracen