Killing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts

A very concise piece Khan Saheb. The first thing that came to mind when I read the news was: Here we go again! So, what`s new? Clinton`s in trouble domestically. His officials conveniently deliver a highly provocative report to the ``Security Council`` (I wonder whose security?)on the eve of the impeachment vote. A night before, Butler had his staff suddenly move out of Iraq, I`d say again, with impeccable timing.

The Congress postponed the impeachment vote as expected. The bombing campaign shall continue, says Cohen. So, no one knows if the current House will ever get to vote. And if not, will the new House have to start the impeachment proceedings from scratch? Probably. And that`ll give our beloved head of the government enough time to lobby enough members to avoid impeachment and settle for a censure. Game plan`s in place and the game pieces are being moved accordingly.

But does anybody care about the innocent people of Iraq who`ll have to cope with bombs exploding in their midst, and the prices of basic goods going through the roof, if not already there, all of it just before Ramadhan?

Little children, terrorized, must be hiding in the arms of their mothers, crying uncontrollably due to the loud thunders of the cruise missiles.

1.6 million human beings, made of the same flesh and blood as everyone else, have died in Iraq due to the sanctions alone in the past seven years, according to the UN statistics, and most of them children and elderly. What is their crime other than that they already suffer under a ruthless dictator who had the blessings of these same countries doing the bombing?

Babies are dying of malnutrition and for lack of ordinary medicine for flu and typhoid. Hunderds of thousands of parents` hopes and dreams are being shattered every day. All for what? Can anyone deny that these sanctions are just as catastrophic as the weapons of mass destruction themselves?

And after these bombings there`s a definite chance of further posptponment of sanctions, probably until Saddam is alive, and the stupid, stubborn dictator`s not dying anytime soon. So, the message to the Iraqi people from the world is: Too bad you had to live in the time when your fellow Arab and Muslim brothers had lost their balls and spines. Mostly due to the diseases that range from illiteracy and ignorance to corrupt dictatorships and the last ditch efforts by these dictators to maintain their hold on the riches of their countries.

Alas, O` people of Iraq, you are dying because the Middle East is cursed. And the curse is none other than the black gold called oil. And that curse will be with you for at least the next fifty years. May God be with you until then!

Don`t forget the chayla Brits who seem to be clinging to past greatness by riding the US coattails on every issue. France condemned the attacks. Viva la difference! Does anyone consult the Ruskies anymore?

right on target, umair (no pun intended). it`s amazing how the villains are so transparent; i used to think hindi movie baddies lacked subtlety.

there`s a demo against the bombing in times square in nyc at 5pm dec 17, if anyone is interested.

Re: RR

You have raised an interesting point. The answer is yes and no, the newly sworn in 106th Congress does need to start the impeachment proceedings again. There is a sun set provision in all congressional bills that prevents this from happening. If this congress can not pass the articles of impeachment before the next one is sworn in, January 22, 1999, this issue will be considered moot and it will die. It needs to sponsered again and the nightmare starts all over again !

Why do think Clinton said that the strikes will continue over the next few days ? His reason, and SecDef Cohen`s for attacking Iraq was to avail the window of opportunity before Ramadhan, but if this is an on going operation, it will over lap Ramadhan. Do you really think Clinton in order to save his political bacon will respect Ramadhan ?

A long time ago, in a post, I asked the rhetorical question; who has the ability to remove Saddam Hussein and why don`t they ? Clinton does not want to remove Saddam Hussein, because he owes him his presidency. How many times has the Iraqi problem come up when Clinton was facing domestic problems ? Why not attack last month when the problem was the same, why now and what was so different this time and why keep this charade going for seven years ?

I think the House should go ahead with the impeachment debate next week. Senate majority leader Trent Lott, in a New York Times piece, has already stated he does not support Clinton in this matter. Gerry Solomon, the House chairman of the powerful rules committee, a former marine himself, has said, on live CNN, that Clinton is willing to kill American soldiers to keep his job.
If this thing does go to the senate, I don`t think it will be so difficult to find the neccessary votes to impeach him in light of what has happened.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE VIETNAM THAT A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS IS NOT SUPPORTING, AND THE A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE IS QUESTIONING, THE PRESIDENT IN A FOREIGN POLICY DECISION. THIS MORE THAN THE CHARGES OF PERJURY, AGAINST CLINTON, CONSISTUTES AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE: HIGH CRIMES FOR RISKING A WAR NOT MANDATED BY CONGRESS.

We are living in an historic moment that historians will, many years from now, scarcely believe ever happened !

Re: Umair Khan & RR (2)

This is inflammatory in the name of religion. You guys put the illiterate mullahs and the demagogues to shame. The reason that the Iraqi people, and the rest of the Muslim world, are miserable is that they are ruled by scum bags. It is not the Satanic West led by the US that is responsible for their miseries. You`ve got to put your house in order, boys.

Re: Godot

You must be responding to a different article. Please read carefully what we are saying. You just repeated yourself everything I have said. And who said anything about Islam vs. the West? It`s a crticism on the misguided domestic and foreign policies of our country. As citizens of the United States, we DO have the right to question the motives and the actions of our leaders, don`t we? And as fellow human beings, and oweing our debt to the suffering humanity, we CAN, at the very least, feel sympathy for the poor Iraqis cant` we? You say inflammatory? Blowing up human beings to distract people from lies about other stuff that involves the word ``blow`` is inflammatory my friend, not what we`ve said.

Rehan.

Umair,

Dead on, I say.

This guy ( Clinton ) will go to any lengths to save his skin.

BTW, I hope you can soon resolve the problem with Shahbaz`s account. I just read his posting on Homestead. He seems to be very bitter about it.

It may not be my place to ask you this but out of plain curiosity ( and you can certainly tell me to not interfere, since you are the editor ) what is going on?

Re: bg (6)

No, I don`t believe that the US/UK bombing of Iraq ``is good ole pacifying, peace-making.`` I do, however, believe that a scholar should be dealt as a scholar, and a ghunda like a ghunda. Saddam is not the former.

If Saddam`s ghunda-gardi was limited to Iraq and to his people, it`s fine. Saddam should then be a problem only for the Iraqis, and the US should not try to get rid of him through a war, in which innocent civilians die. But Saddam is a threat to others, outside Iraq, who are not ghundas like him. He should be dealt with sternly. It is unfortunate that innocent Iraqis have to pay a price for it. Poor Iraqis are screwed either way.

Yes, I do believe in shared responsibility. But responsibility, just as relationships, is a two-way street. ``Shared`` is the operating word.

The ``boys``? Well…thank you for the complement!

It is important to point out at this time when all the paid pundits and military strategists are giving appraisals of the situation in Iraq; the importance of air strikes and rendering the threat of Saddam to the ``free world``, that saddam and other (`scumbag`) dictators in the midle east and other regions are the creation of United States, and Great Britain.

Saddam was fully supported by the United States when he was gassing thousands of people in Northern Iraq, he was given billions in aid to start his projects to create `weapons of mass destruction`. U.S even supported Saddam after the Persian Gulf war, as he slaughtered thousands of people who rose up against his dictatorship. White House refused to cooperate with dissenting generals, and rebels who asked for American help, or access to ammunition that was confiscated in desert storm.

The war on Iraqi people has not ended in the last 7-8 years, more than 700,000 civilians have been killed as a result of UN sanctions on Iraq. The main difference is that the killing is more direct and you can watch it on CNN.

It is no coincidence that Clinton has chosen to launch the bombs on Iraqi people, at the hour of peril in his blowjob troubles with the Republicans. However, another major factor for the continuation of sanctions on Iraq has to do with the price of oil. Middle East politics has always been dictated by oil. That is why United Staes went to intervene in Kuwait on the first place. But now that the price of oil has been at a all time low for the last few years, the re-emergence of Iraqi oil in international markets will further lower the profit margins for Exxon and Mobil.

(And as you all probably know Exxon and Mobil are merging.)

bg already mentioned that their is going to be a rally at time square today (thurs, 12/17) at 5:00 pm. It will be great if people can post different activities/ rallies going on in their cities/neighborood.

Umair:

I would not be surprised to learn later that Saddam Hussain is a CIA operative--a la Sadat,

Mubarak and a host of other tin pot scum bags.

I mean look at the ``coincidences``-----Bush let Saddam`s Revolutionary Guards ESCAPE from Kuwait

before butchering the conscripted peasants---

everytime Badboy Billy is in trouble Saddam bails him out--- or so it seems.

Iraq`s Nuclear potential has long ago been eliminated---all are agreed on it. Chemical and germ warfare---what hogwash----one can prepare at will from one`s kitchen supplies what the mighty Security Council terms chemical weapons.

The sanctions are a facade aimed to please American friends in the region---Saudi Americans, I mean bedouins, Israel and the mini villages

of the Gulf-----and as an added bonus it serves

American foreign policy objectives as well.

Clinton will continue to lob these missiles if he can get away with it. He is cool, calculating and shrewd. Remember, this ``warfare``

involves no body bags. Also worth remembering-- American Fighting Machinery is not in trim fightin shape and has not seen any real action since Vietnam.

Somehow in all these deliberations, the average

Iraqi--as indeed the average Muslim--- tends to get overlooked.

cynically,

re godot

``This is inflammatory in the name of religion. You guys put the illiterate mullahs and the demagogues to shame.``

i suppose the US/UK bombing of iraq is good ole pacifying, peace-making. this bombing itself wouldnt infalme anyone? no, only calling a spade a spade would.


``The reason that the Iraqi people, and the rest of the Muslim world, are miserable is that they
are ruled by scum bags.``

ok, so bomb the country and starve its civilians to death and let them die because of the lack of medicines. THAT will get rid of the scum bags!

``It is not the Satanic West led by the US that is responsible for their miseries.``

okay, would you believe shared responsibility?

``You`ve got to put your house in order, boys.``

nice touch, that, ``boys``!

This is a real mess.

A true political crisis of international proportions. First you have a President who is willing to do ANYTHING to save his skin and who, it could be argued (not very well), is being pushed to the wall, pursued by an irresponsible Congress bent on a program (impeachment) which their electors have rejected and don`t want to be part of. So you have a President who is willing to do anything but also a Congress willing to do anything to bring him down. Let`s not be swayed by either the President`s `stern talk` or the Congress` crocodile tears for innocent Iraqis or their `high moral` ground talk about serious impeachable crimes.

Then you have Tony (Tory) Blair humilatingly lapping at Bill`s feet. The less said the better.

And of course you have right in the middle, Saddam Hussein and the Ba`ath party, unquestionably one of the most bloody and evil products of human political endeavour. No one is right, but the innocent will get bombed none the less.

Happy Ramadan folks.

Re:mubbashir,temporal

You are absolutely right. This is target practice for US missile systems. The improvements made on them in the past seven years are being tested out. And of course, the US wouldn`t like to see oil prices going down further.

re: Ferozk

``THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE VIETNAM THAT A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS IS NOT SUPPORTING, AND THE A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE IS QUESTIONING,THE PRESIDENT IN A FOREIGN POLICY DECISION.``

I agree with most of your comments. But remember, the congress is not opposed to this attack. They are just upset that Clinton is trying to get away.

Please do not worry about future historians. Similar things have been going on for a long time and present day historians have done a nice job of putting a spin on them or covering them up altogether.

re: Random

Right on. I am sure you will like these two quotes from Noam Chomsky (made in an interview with Frontline`s V.K. Ramachandran in March,1991).

``Britain tails along like a loyal puppy dog on this topic``

``Britain hopes to kind of recover its feelings of imperial glory by trailing along after the big guys across the ocean.``

Ashish

The sooner both Clinton and Saddam are gone the better.

JR

re: godot (reply #9) [by the way, which genius came up with this number reference -- thanks!]

``I do, however, believe that a scholar should be dealt as a scholar, and a ghunda like a ghunda.``

i dont get it. then what is the difference between the ghunda and s/he who acts like a ghunda in response? i mean, is that how optimistic you are about any other means of dealing with someone except bombing them at the slightest pretext?

``If Saddam`s ghunda-gardi was limited to Iraq and to his people, it`s fine. Saddam should then be a problem only for the Iraqis, and the US should not try to get rid of him through a war, in which innocent civilians die. But Saddam is a threat to others, outside Iraq, who are not ghundas like him.``

for example? may i remind you, that the biggest ghunda on the block is the US govt., who has committed more acts of aggression against sovereign nations than ANY other country since world war 2!!

``It is unfortunate that innocent Iraqis have to pay a price for it. Poor Iraqis are screwed either way.``

it is unfortunate indeed. the problem is not that iraqis are screwed either ways, the problem is that the US imposed sanctions and bombing only kill more of them and make them weaker, so that they cant even put up a decent fight against saddam hussein. the economic sanctions against iraq are the strictest, most punitive against any nation in modern history. according to the most conservative estimate (reported recently in the washington post) about 260,000 children 5 years old and younger have died due to the sanctions. i refuse to believe there is no other option except to starve the country to death to get rid of saddam. what kind of logic is that. estimates of total deaths of civilians due to sanctions range between half to one million !! imagine that one million people in an economic war. while the world, all but silently stands by the US wags its dirty finger at saddam hussein.

``Yes, I do believe in shared responsibility. But responsibility, just as relationships, is a two-way street.``Shared`` is the operating word.``

okay, so what and by whom is being shared here?

best,
bg

Clinton`s comments about wanting to do this before Ramandan sounded ominously familiar. Reminded me of Imam Hussein and the Battle of Karbala, when his opponent declared that he had to kill Imam Hussein before he goes for Magrib Prayers.