Snicker, snicker..... nyuk, nyuk, nyuk


PDA
Antlurz
04-10-2005, 02:03 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0-2005Apr8.html

No Longer Your Iraq

By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, April 10, 2005; Page B07

Dear Saddam,

Yes, it has been a long time since I wrote. But then you were so hard to find for a while. And since you surfaced -- in your case the word has real meaning -- we have both been so busy. So let's calm down and catch up.

Is it true that you watched on television as Jalal Talabani was elected to your old job as president of Iraq? You know, better than anyone, the extraordinary significance of a Kurd's becoming the head of state there in "the beating heart of Arab nationalism." And you know that I know that you know.

When we talked about the Kurds, I wrote afterward that you treated any mention of them "as an insult" to your very presence -- that you responded to concern about their rights as if you "had been accused of kicking at a snarling stray dog." That discussion was in 1975, before you dropped poison gas on them as part of the 1987-88 campaign of genocide you code-named Anfal.

Not only has this non-Arab minority from the mountains of northern Iraq survived; it has prospered under 14 years of U.S. protection and guidance. To see the worldly and wily Talabani become your head jailer is a moment to have lived for and to savor. And we both know that Talabani will do just that.

But the moment represents much more. This is matrix-breaking stuff, Saddam. It is the nail in the coffin for the racist myth of pan-Arabism that you (okay, okay, you and others) propagated to justify brute force as the lowest common denominator of power in the Middle East.

Your claim to defend "Arabism" by persecuting the Kurds (and going to war against the Persians in Iran) was always a cover for the fact that you and your Baathist sidekicks also represent a minority in Iraq. Like the Kurds, Sunni Arabs make up about one-fifth of the population.

Here's my point: The Middle East is a giant mosaic of religious and ethnic minorities that have until now known only how to persecute or be persecuted. Frequently the claim of cultural, political and religious cohesiveness contained in pan-Arabist ideology such as yours is put forward to mask the true diversity and conflicts of the people known as Arabs.

Suppressing diversity is what you were all about. The same is true for your ideological brothers yet personal enemies, the ruling Baathists in Syria, who represent a minority Alawite sect that can rule only by force. No wonder they see themselves as imperiled by democracy arriving next door. Let's hope for once they are right.

Your neighbors tolerated or actively supported your brutality and corruption simply because you were a Sunni Arab. For them, that gave you a license to kill, rob, rape or imprison not only the Kurds (though they are Sunnis) but also the majority Shiites (though they are Arab).

What you saw on television Wednesday is said to have set you to twirling your beard. But it gets worse: Talabani's accession to the ceremonial presidency is only part of the deal that the Kurds and Shiites struck last week to form a new transitional government.

When the details are released, you will choke to learn that the Shiite prime minister, Ibrahim Jafari, has agreed that the Kurds will maintain their regional militia -- to be funded by the central government -- and their regional political institutions, as well as key government departments in what Kurdish leaders now insist on calling "the Federal Republic of Iraq."

You will protest, of course, that this mongrelized electoral dealmaking will bring the breakup of Iraq as it exists today. I can't deny that possibility. The Kurds have come so far and gained so much confidence since I used to visit them in their besieged mountain hideouts that they will now begin to dream of independence.

But they have much to gain from staying in a decentralized, federal Iraq, and perhaps even more to give. By showing that minority rights can be protected by the rule of law and democratic practice -- not just by brute force -- Iraq can change the Middle East.

I close with regrets: Too bad the Arab summit was held two weeks before Talabani's election. We will have to wait to see the faces of Arab leaders welcoming a Kurdish president of Iraq into their midst. Seeing that would be almost as sweet as it would have been to see you watch Talabani get elected.

If you enjoyed reading about "Snicker, snicker..... nyuk, nyuk, nyuk" here in the FamilyFriendsFirearms.com archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join FamilyFriendsFirearms.com today for the full version!
Antlurz
04-10-2005, 02:05 AM
Sometimes, I am surprised the WaPo prints things that actually make me glad that I drew W-4's from them back in the 60's.

This is one of those times.

Ron

Marinesg1012
04-10-2005, 04:51 AM
:up: :up:

7.62mmFMJ
04-10-2005, 10:47 AM
It is amazing how freedom shakes out the tribal/cultural differences and binds the differences into a trusting, team effort. :up: :salute:

wildames
04-10-2005, 11:25 PM
"BAGHDAD, April 10 - Iraq's new president called Sunday for extending amnesty to Iraqi insurgents who had killed combatants, possibly including U.S. and Iraqi troops, as part of a drive that he said could help end attacks within months.

Jalal Talabani, speaking on his first day of work in the white and gilt presidential offices after his inauguration Thursday, excluded clemency for al Qaeda and other foreign armed groups operating here.

As for killings by Iraqi insurgents, Talabani said, "There are two kinds of killing: In battle or in action, this could be covered by the amnesty. Those who are involved in killing innocent people, detonation of car bombs, killing people in mosques and in churches, these would not be covered by the amnesty."

Talabani did not say specifically whether the amnesty would apply to fighters who had killed U.S. troops, other foreign troops or Iraqi security forces. Nor did he elaborate on how an amnesty program would work...."

Marinesg1012
04-11-2005, 05:33 AM
He is the president he can decide what he wants to.

The focus on this artical is that he is the President and not a dictator.

wildames
04-11-2005, 06:09 AM
re:"He is the president he can decide what he wants to."

So was Sadam.

Marinesg1012
04-11-2005, 07:52 AM
Saddam wasn't elected

She Who Must Be Obeyed
04-11-2005, 08:13 AM
Ok, so he offered amnesty to Iraqui combatents. SO? There was a dsitinction between those who fought and those who terrorized. Sounds like he is trying to reach out to the other side of the conflict without caving to terror. After all when the peacekeepers leave he has to govern everybody in Iraq including the insurgents. I don't understand your difficulty with this Wildames.

Marinesg1012
04-11-2005, 08:29 AM
If you read it, there is going to be very few who havent participated in an attack against only the uniformed service members.
The "insurgents" are terrorist. Very Few will get any amnesty

Popeye
04-11-2005, 11:06 AM
I believe that at the end of our War Between the States general amnesty was offered Southern combatants.

wildames
04-11-2005, 04:50 PM
Yes....a "general" amnesty to combatants if they gave up arms and pledged themselves to the Union....after that, land seized and re-distributed, elections rigged, states rights lost, and a "general" plundering of the South's wealth and resources. Comparing the amnesty after the War of Northern Aggression to Talabani's offered amnesty may indeed prove to be similar.

She.....I don't really have a problem with Iraq's "minority" Prez.....we have one here. Their Prez offers amnesty to "insurgents"....ours to "illegals". I think they will find they have much in common.

Hook
04-11-2005, 06:23 PM
Yes....a "general" amnesty to combatants if they gave up arms and pledged themselves to the Union....after that, land seized and re-distributed, elections rigged, states rights lost, and a "general" plundering of the South's wealth and resources. Comparing the amnesty after the War of Northern Aggression to Talabani's offered amnesty may indeed prove to be similar.



Give me a break.....Get real!



Hook

wildames
04-11-2005, 07:14 PM
The War of Northern Aggression was as "real" as it gets.....don't feel bad....many of us were fed the same revisionist history as you in grade school.....the truth is out there for those who seek it.

Hook
04-11-2005, 07:30 PM
The War of Northern Aggression was as "real" as it gets.....don't feel bad....many of us were fed the same revisionist history as you in grade school.....the truth is out there for those who seek it.

Ah..Yes...wild, However, your left-wing, socialistic, liberal bent leads me to believe that the "truth" that you seek may be historicaly a little faulty.

Chuckle...giggle...snicker...chortle...



Hook

Popeye
04-11-2005, 07:33 PM
I vote for VERY faulty.

wildames
04-11-2005, 07:39 PM
chuckle..... :D ;)

well.....I certainly don't want to start the "War of Northern Aggression II" just to show you guys that my history is correct. :P

Hook
04-11-2005, 07:51 PM
chuckle..... :D ;)

well.....I certainly don't want to start the "War of Northern Aggression II" just to show you guys that my history is correct. :P

Well..If YOU started it, wouldn't it be "the War of Southern Aggression"???

Chortle...Chortle...

Hook

She Who Must Be Obeyed
04-12-2005, 07:33 AM
Actually Wildames is more right than not. The whole war started over whether or not states had the right to secede. The states that seceded thought they had that right and Mr. Lincoln was of the opinion that they did not. I could go on for pages about how Mr. Lincoln trampled the Constitution to keep the southern states in the union. Most of the history books used today are historically inaccurate to an appalling degree. And in case you're curious about my sources they include many first person accounts (diaries and letters and such). My husband and I have been reenacting the Civil War since 1983 and winters are research time. We do a federal impression, because my husband's ancestors fought for the union.

Wildames, I thank you for answering my original question. Mark this day on your calendar I agree with you about Mr. Bush's stance towards illegals. :D

wildames
04-12-2005, 07:43 AM
WOW!.....reenactors!.....any pics of you and your husband in era uniform and clothes?
I'll even sing the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" for a pic. ;) :D

She Who Must Be Obeyed
04-12-2005, 01:46 PM
Well......actually yes. We have many pictures of us, us together, us apart, us and the children, in the field at the Ball, I'll see if I can get my son the computer geek to upload a couple. But really, singing will not be necessary. I don't actually care for that song. Now if you do "Just before the battle mother" (in a New York accent) that I'll listen to. :D

wildames
04-12-2005, 03:38 PM
sorry....no hope of me doing a "New York" accent.....can't get that Southern drawl out of me. :D BTW.....it always kills me when "Billy Yanks" on movies try to do the "Southern drawl"....they still talk too fast even when they try not to. ;)

Hook
04-14-2005, 09:27 PM
sorry....no hope of me doing a "New York" accent.....can't get that Southern drawl out of me. :D BTW.....it always kills me when "Billy Yanks" on movies try to do the "Southern drawl"....they still talk too fast even when they try not to. ;)

Yankee's have trouble pronouncing the words: I...EYE...AYE like the southerner's AH...AH...AH


Chortle...


Hook

If you enjoyed reading about "Snicker, snicker..... nyuk, nyuk, nyuk" here in the FamilyFriendsFirearms.com archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join FamilyFriendsFirearms.com today for the full version!