Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraqis Protest Against US Presence In Iraq
BAGHDAD - Thousands of Shi'ites protested against the U.S. presence in Iraq, heeding orders from anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for a peaceful show of force on the first Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
![[Demonstrators chant slogans during a protest in Baghdad's Sadr City September 5, 2008. Thousands of Iraqi Shi'ites protested the U.S. presence on the first Friday of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, heeding orders from anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. (REUTERS/Kareem Raheem)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/iraqprotest.jpg "iraqprotest.jpg")
Crowds of people waved photos of the reclusive cleric, dancing and shouting, following Friday prayers in Sadr City, a Shi'ite stronghold in northeastern Baghdad.
Several men burned a red, white and blue flag as they pledged support for the reclusive Sadr.
"We all support you, Sayyid Moqtada! We are your soldiers!" they shouted, addressing Sadr by a title of respect.
In the southern holy city of Najaf, several hundred protesters turned out for a parallel protest. "No, no to occupation!" read one banner.
Late last month, Sadr extended indefinitely a ceasefire for the Mehdi Army, the feared militia that until a government crackdown earlier this year controlled Sadr City and swathes of southern Iraq.
The cleric, who is believed to be holed up in the Iranian city of Qom, has asked the bulk of his followers to dedicate themselves to helping poor Shi'ites and countering western influence in Iraq. He also ordered Friday's protests.
The question as violence drops sharply across Iraq is whether the bulk of Sadr's militia will obey orders to put down their arms.
In Sadr City, Imam Muhenned al-Moussawi addressed the thousands of men and boys gathered for prayers under the blistering summer sun.
"Everybody knows that the goals of American wars are commercial. They use war to drain desperate nations economically and socially," he told the crowd.
The protests came as attention focused on the future of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sought assurances from Washington about gradually reducing its military activities in the country.
Pentagon sources said this week they were recommending the withdrawal of one combat brigade, 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers, in early 2009, a move that reflects both improving conditions in Iraq and growing needs in Afghanistan.
Reporting by Sattar Rahim in Baghdad; writing by Missy Ryan
46 Comments so far
Show AllSaturnalia---
You write:
"There is nothing in the contract of union that allows for secession. Didn't the delagates [sic] at the constitutional convention know that they should read what they sign?"
I disagree with your first sentence. The issue of secession is actually quite complex. As for your second sentence, please apply it to the Patriot Act and related fascistic mumbo-jumbo, which were voted up by legislators who had neither read nor understood while some of them are seeking now the Presidency.
Of course one might ask, when was the last time you actually read through the software license agreement you agreed to; when was the last time you read through your Homeowners Insurance contract, or your car insurance contract?
What has happened is the breakdown of the Social Contract. Esp. so in the collapse of the Housing Bubble. Where, so often, HOPE among the less well off replaced emperical consideration as they signed on the dotted line without reading what they were signing, having been sold a Bill of Goods.
Come to think of it, when was the last time you read The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, let alone the Declaration of Independence and the Supreme Court infractions of them according to virtually anyone's Doctrine?
George W. Bush as a sitting President in the presence of a Committee: "The Constitution's just a goddam piece of paper."
Unfortunately, it would seem, the Iraqi's take a Contract more seriously.
-30-
"Everybody knows that the goals of American wars are commercial. They use war to drain desperate nations economically and socially,"
Wow, looks like Muhenned al-Moussawi must be a big fan of Naomi Klein's latest book.
Good on him for calling a spade a spade.
It would be a disasterous blow to or economy if we pull out of Iraq now or at any time in the forseeable future. We are spending a hundred billion plus a day occupying Iraq and tht's money well spent to maintain giant corporations such as Halliburton and their friends and sub contractors, such as Blackwater, etc. Just imagine what would happen if they had to layoff a large number of employees.
We have all of thoes military bases we have built in Iraq and to think that we would just pull out, is that sensible? Of course not, and both McCain and Obama are fully aware of what it would do to our ecoomy. They aren't going to do anything irrational and stick another poker in our already failed economy.
Finally never forget tht huge embassy complex we have built in Baghdad, just gonna leave it sitting there empty? Haaa! No way Burger King has a long time contract there for one thing.
The Iraqi people shoud be grateful for what we have done to them and their land, tell them to take a good look. ____ It's almost unbelieveable.
~KEM~
How ungreatful, after the USA went to all that trouble to help them with the twin curses of overpopulation and a glut of icky oil.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Hey, Lizard, I couldn't agree more. The collective ignorance of its citizens is one of America's greatest problems. It's love of violence is another!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Actually, I think the ignorance of Americans would be little trouble if people weren't so proud, superior and satisfied of their level of education, closed minds, and failed economic theories.
Just try to suggest to the right wing faction of Americans that ANY COUNTRY DOES ANYTHING BETTER.
You couldn't take away single payer in any country that has adopted it, but millions of Americans have mythical anecdotes that show our health care is better - in opposition to all facts.
In June 2006, the Iraqis prepared a 28-item peace plan and released it only to the Times of London (not The London Times). The paper was not allowed to print the entire document, but was allowed to list a few items the Iraqis demanded, among them a definite withdrawal date of all US/coalition forces, an end to attacks on residences during which we accidentally killed thousands of civilians in our zeal to "get" terrorists, and amnesty for any Sunnis who had not killed fellow Iraqis (see The Times of London for June 23 and a few days beyond).
The Iraqi plan was given to a reporter on a Thursday. By the time the US government and the US Senate got through with their plan, all the stuff that COULD HAVE LED TO REAL PEACE AND RECONCILIATION was gone or weakened to the point of uselessness. The plan as released to the US media on the following Monday was the revised/useless one. Plus four items (who knows what they might have been) were deleted before the Monday release of a 24-point plan.
The number of permanent bases in Iraq is about 50, which are being built even though Congress voted to forbid them. It IS all about oil. Google Gret Muttitt or call up www.crudedesigns.org.
Did these demonstrators have a permit? If not they should be pepper-sprayed and thrown in jail. No, wait, this was Baghdad, not St Paul Mn.
Javier, my experience with people who view Lincoln's administration as the beginning of federal lawlessness in the United States is that most of them are white people who fail to take into consideration the destruction and the disposession of the American indian, the lawless expropriation of African American labor for two hundred and forty years before Lincoln's emergence as a U.S. leader, and the Mexican American War, which Lincoln actively opposed. Your assessment of his administration is white supremist, as you are only considering the displacement of the rich southern white man in the Americas. Lincoln had a lot of problems to be sure, one of them being that he was not willing to smash the southern aristocracy to smithereens, which was their just desert, and the other that he was not willing to shoot more northern industrial war speculators like Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan full of holes, which they also richly deserved. But he wasn't willing to sit back and let a bunch of southern bourbons declare their "right" to own human beings the whole of constitutional law, however they masqueraded behind "state's rights", and in the end, he was even willing to arm black troops in order to enlist their support in the defeat of chattel slavery. His reasons for doing the latter were only politically expedient, according to Frederick Douglass, but as Douglass also said, no one in Lincoln's party with the exception of the radicals Stevens and Sumner were willing to go as far.
But Lincoln did try to smash the political state white supremacy tried to build on this soil, his key error being that he wasn't harsh enough on the racists of the south or the north. Sorry if you can't live with that, but it's the truth.
“Several men burned a red, white and blue flag as they pledged support for the reclusive Sadr.”
What the fok is a red, white and blue flag? Why is this biased, idiot reporter afraid to call a spade a spade?
Also, “hole up”, “feared militia” my assss.
It was PROBABLY a REPLICA of a flag--that is why he did not cal it an American flag. That is my guess. Of course, the "ole red, white and blue" crap is just that--the UK, France, NewZealand, Cuba--all have RW&B flags.
I sense that many CD posters are still not aware of how criminally the US has been behaving for well over 100 years. Mr. Abraham Lincoln, who was justifiably assasinated before he could enjoy the fruits of his labor was the beginning of lawlessness as a tool of the government. Mr.Lincoln broke a multitude of laws and shamelessly aggressed the south which had joined the union under the understanding that they could secede at will.Linc oln broke this promise and assaulted the south knowing that a divided US would never be able to compete with the great Empires or have an empire of its own. The ends justified the means.........................................The present situation is what Lincoln fought for.He would be pleased.........................................lizard
A stunningly horrific view of history in that you see assassination as a credible action. Not to mention that youre rather wrong about secession and which side commenced hostilities. If the South thought they had the right to secede why did the feel it necesary to fire the first shots?
That war was fought, not over slavery, but over which economic forces would rule this nation, the agrarian South or the industrialised North.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I meant to ask if you would agree that the machinery being developed then spelled the end of slavery in any case?
Absolutely correct.
"If the South thought they had the right to secede why did the feel it necesary to fire the first shots?"
Though here I'd say the South did have the right to secede, certainly Texas did, but the real reason the South fired the first shots were they had their very own Cheney/Wolfewitz clones.
Wow, your grasp of historical events is stunning.
I do believe it was the south that fired the first shot against the Federal Gov't.
There is nothing in the contract of union that allows for secession. Didn't the delagates at the constitutional convention know that they should read what they sign?
Why doesnt the South secede again? I'd bet that not a shot would be fired.You have to allow people that want to leave to go first, though.
The US is fighting in the Middle East for freedom and liberty. The freedom to colonize other nations and the liberty to do as they please.
oh this is gold :-)
did you make it up or get it from someone else? I'll be using it for sure.
A light bulb shines its brightest for a brief moment just before burning out. The United States is not a light bulb (though it used to be a good idea) but we are not at our brightest just before burning out. George Wanker Bush sucked all the light up his backside, something at which he is not a miserable failure but a great success. It's not a talent most of us would want to have. Into the darkness Bush created comes McCain and Palin, reeking like Bush but telling everyone they smell like springtime when change is in the air. Do not vote for uppity exotic types who eat finger sandwiches and arugula. Terrorists eat nails and drink their own urine. We, the Repimplicans, have been ripping you off for 40 years but, except for one little slip-up on September 11, 2001, our record against ragheads and wogs is 100%. McCain/Palin 2008. And so it shall be.
The opinions of neither the Iraqi people nor the people of the U.S. count to the Demopublican Corporate War Party and its controlled/compliant media, so Iraqi demonstrations and U.S. demonstrations not only have no effect, they won't even be shown on corporate TV nor in corporate newspapers.
Until the U.S. global Empire of 760 military bases in over 130 countries is dismantled or forced to collapse by our coming economic breakdown, and until our bloated war budget, which exceeds the defense budgets of ALL other nations combined, is slashed, any hope for funding domestic social justice programs is unrealistic. Read Chalmers Johnson's Blowback trilogy (Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic is the third book) and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew J. Bacevich.
Priofits trump all else, and this war has generated enormous profits, especially for one Richard Cheney whose Halliburton options were once sitting at $9/share and now are through the roof!
I would second the suggestion that folks read the Bacevich book. He is a retired Colonel, a conservative who lost his son in this war, and a staunch critic of this administrations polcies and plans. I have a two part interview with him that is a real pleasure to hear and , when I get back home to my favorites list, Ill post the link.....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Don't forget, OK? I'd like to see.
Thanks for the reminder....alzheimers isnt all bad, you are always meeting new people!
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=67609
Ive got the whole interview hard copied, if theyve removed it I can email it or post it here....Its a two part clip so dont forget to click the second part after being mesmerised by the first!
Before the US invaded Iraq, there was food, hospitals, electricity, jobs. even under sanctions. Today there is none of the above and all this to kill one person? I laugh when you think about it, invade a country to kill one person? Well they used the same story for Afghanistan as well. I hope the US leaves Iraq and Iraq keeps on letting foreign oil companies to drill drill drill
No way Gitmo will even be closed down, that part of CUBA has great weather, having been to Cuba several times and even sailed passed Gitmo.
In fact I will try to send a posting from Cuba this winter. I will try to change my name and you will know it is me
According to the conjoined Tweedledum and Tweedledee running the Amerikan malignant duopoly, We Gave the Iraqi People the Gift of Freedom.
And this is the thanks we get!
There are over 700 US military 'sites' around the globe.
The US pays Cuba a nominal fee for renting Guantanamo Bay but the Cubans never cash the check as a protest (except once, as I recall).
There are no foreign bases on US soil, except for AIPAC offices.
AIPAC foreign bases? Are you kidding? This IS the United States of Israel.
The first one (post-revolution)was cashed in..................lizard
How are AIPAC offices "foreign bases"?
Don't they represent the 51st State?
On C-SPAN'S washington journal this morning they had a US military officer from Iraq. He stated the usual propaganda that " the Iraqis don't want us to leave" He of course was not referring to the Iraqi PEOPLE. The overwhelming majority want us to LEAVE. It's impossible to express my anger when hearing this propaganda.
Here's a question ( actually 2:).. semi-related.
Last week I suddenly wondered.. why do we have a base in Cuba, anyway? I know we have bases all over the world.. many hundreds ( 300? 700? way more than generally known to the public).. but usually, the US brokers some agreement, or bribes/ blackmails/ etc an agreement for use of land for a military base. I believe we have them in just about every country around the world, correct? But, how did we manage to get a base in a country that we are openly hostile toward and has nothing to gain from allowing an antagonistic bully in its backyard.. or does it?
Second.. as noted- we have bases in just about every country in the world (sorry, I can' cite the source.. scott ritter or some other reputable and reliable news source though), so.. is there any reciprocity? does ANY country in the world have a base on US soil?
just curious if someone has an informed answer for this/these..
tnx
The story goes like this: The cubans were fighting the Spanish for independance. The US government offered to help. The cubans declined fearing the US would take over. The US promised to help and then leave. The cubans accepted. After the Spanish were defeated the US refused to leave and took over. They began to build replicas of US buildings intending to stay forever. They set up a puppet government and arranged for a 100+ year lease of Guantanamo with the puppet government. Castro overthrew the government and asked the US to leave. The US claimed the lease as right to stay and mailed a check for the rent and has done so every month since the revolution. The Castro government has refused to cash in the checks sinced that time also. I hope that helps.
Incidentally, the US has a long history of going back on its word, most notably, but by no means exclusively, in having reneged on essentially every treaty made with the natives they slaughtered and whose land it now occupies, hence the label forked tongue.
javier - 100 year lease? Seems like it's just about time for a "renewal"
The United States controls the land on both sides of the southern part of Guantánamo Bay (Bahía de Guantánamo in Spanish) under a lease set up in the wake of the 1898 Spanish-American War. The lease was established in the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, and its terms were modified in the 1934 Treaty of Relations. The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be an illegal occupation of the area, and argues that the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which established the lease, now violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, Article 4 of the same document states that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shall not be retroactively applied to any treaties made before it. The U.S. also argues that its right to the base have been reaffirmed by Cuba since the original treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
Very refreshing, TeriD, for someone on CD to just post an honest question. I can recommend an excellent book, and really an easy read, called "Overthrow" by Stephen Kinzer. Beware though, after reading it you might have a little different perspective on good ol' US of A.
different perspective how.. meaning I might suddenly like and be proud of the back-room politics that this country practices...?
and we should all be asking questions.. what if CD was a place to gather information, ask and question, rather than attack and grumble...?
we should all practice critical thinking ( rather than thinking critically) and open minded-ness
In defense of some folks
I can understand when people post angry rhetoric and hyperbole, given the enormous frustrations building in the progressive community, as far back as the Reagan years even....When one sees her nation following a path she knows to be selfish, greedy, harmful to those within and without our borders, when one fails to see any opposition to such trends either among our legislators or in our media, and when one reads the posts of some here who seem to relish the inequities, make light of constitutional violations and speak as if to children, when even children recognise lies ( Wolfie , you reading this?), it is rather easy to succumb to bitterness and frustration
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Well, "different" is relative isn't it. There are many people who only know the official myth of USA as taught in school. If you're one of those, then this book (and many others of course) will give you a different perspective. Since you were asking about Cuba I guessed you might have not known much about the true nature of our government. Sounds like you do though. I still think you'd benefit from the book. His writing style is very effective IMHO. He presents the official history, then presents the reality, which is usually almost just the opposite. One good example: I've read a bit of history but never knew Hawaii was a sovereign country before becoming a US state.
And yes, I wish CD was more ask and question (though I have to admit I've made some zinger posts myself). It seems lately there's an active group of posters who are obviously neo-con sympathizers. They make it very difficult to carry on civil discussions.
You have a base at Cuba to provide a coaling station for the us navy. You got that for taking the colony away from Spain back in the 1898 war with that country. I don't think there's any foreign bases in the usa, but there are agreements that see foreign officers and men serve in us bases and ships (vice versa too).
Thanks for the input re how we got the base in Cuba, but I suppose more to the heart of the question now, would be.. why hasn't cuba, as a sovereign nation, invited us to leave? Have they? And why haven't we invited ourselves to leave? being that close to a country we almost consider terrorist, evil and all the other pseudo labels used to incite fear hate and anger.. is very close to occupation.. granted, we stay on the base etc.. but it is most assuredly a hostile presence.. as though cuba was suddenly going to rise up and attack the US?
They have.
You still send the rent cheques, Cuba's gov't doesn't cash them. I think you pay less than 5thousand a year...
We "won" it ..hmmm WON it when we lost the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. We invaded Cuba, because the USSR was going to put nuclear missiles there. They wer going to put missiles there, because Kennedy had put missiles in Alaska, very close to the then, USSR. Bush may very well be repeating the same thing ala--Georgia/Poland/Russia. The actual history of "why" we "invaded" Cuba , has to do with a Revolution which limiteded the profts The United Fruit Co,. was making off the Cuban people , by treating them like slaves.We continue to "embargo" Cuba, not "because it is a communist dictatorhship" (it is neither), but because there are alot of very wealthy Cuban ex-pats in Southern Florida. Florida has alot of electoral votes. I dont think they would "ask us to leave", exactly. But , if they did, neither Bush, nor either candidate running wil stand up to the Cuban ex-pats and do it. People are afraid of us. I'm not sure they respect us anymore. But, yes, they are afraid. Look at the "axis of evil" crap. The message is "get nukse if you dont want US shock and awe".They are terrified of our military might, and the Am. people pay the price , in crappy (or non-existent) social services; people who defy our War Machine pay with their lives.
No, not at all. When you fought the Spanish (1898) you forced the 'free' government of Cuba (Batista's predecessor) to grant you the lease of a coaling station.
You attacked Cuba (bay of Pigs) because Castro nationalised the industries and lands of Cuba, while kicking out the mafia. 1961
The missle crisis was when the USSR responded to nuke missles in Turkey by building sites in Cuba. 1962
Cuba asks you every year to accept their desire to end the lease you forced on them after the Spanish American War. I don't think the Cuban's fear you all that much.
Wrong. The US put missiles in Turkey so the USSR reciprocated by putting missiles in Cuba. The US backed down and removed the Turkish misiles and the USSR moved theirs out of Cuba. You really should know this stuff. The US has never invaded Cuba, the bay of pigs invasion was carried out by expatriate cubans.Again, you really should know this stuff. The ignorance of US actions since the US revolution is one of the important reasons it continues............lizard
I stand corrected on the "missiles in Turkey". I really shoudl know that stuff. I really should . I really , really should. Thanks