Tuesday, July 27, 2004

You wrote, "..media reform, do me one favor, as you are the al qaeda expert, do you think they are worried that democracy will succeed in Iraq and afghanistan or not ? "

I don't think al Qaeda thinks the US is actually intending on establishing true democracy in Iraq, nor should they think that. I don't think there is a reason for anyone to think that the US actually intends on helping to establish real democracy in Iraq.

To believe it you have to believe that it is true that America has "changed course" and is now actually going to help democracy as opposed to helping destroy it which it has for more than 50 years in the Middle East. We already have evidence that US policy makers don't intend on real democracy for Iraq. You can see that US policy makers talk about long term military bases in Iraq.

US policy makers must stop thinking about establishing "the first secure military bases in a client state at the heart of the world's major energy reserves, a powerful lever of world control, as has been understood for sixty years, and a means to subordinate the region more fully to US interests--and the prime motive for the invasion"(1) Establishing military bases is in defiance of the will of Iraqis.

I think it is doubtful that al-qaeda would be any more willing to actually believe the bullshit about the US establishing democracy in Iraq than the average Iraqi. Only 1% of Iraqis actually believe that the goal was to establish democracy and only 5% thought the goal was to help Iraqis.

The actions of the US show contempt for democracy and an unwillingness to help a true democratic process emerge. Iyad Allawi, the PM of Iraq, was selected by the men we selected, the Prime Minster was one of the people the US selected to be on the Iraqi Council.(2) The men we selected to rule Iraq "jumped the gun" when they appointed the Prime Minister. Apparently the UN envoy was actually supposed to select. "A United Nations spokesman has said UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi - who was charged with choosing the interim government - "respects" the nomination."(3) Check Iyad Allawi's background: Saddam's secret police, British intelligence, CIA, alleged terrorist acts against civilians in Baghdad. AFTER he was appointed PM, there have been reports about Iyad Allawi executing six suspected insurgents in an Iraqi police station! The story, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers, is that six prisoners were handcuffed and blindfolded, lined up against a courtyard wall and shot by the Iraqi Prime Minister. (4) I haven't seen the reports in American media, looks like the media is up to there usual games of suppression. Reminds we of the period when the US supported Saddam, the media wasn't eager to talk about his evils THEN. These facts should mean something to anyone that is thinking about actual democracy.

Instead of how the current leaders in Iraq being selected the way they were, which even involved ignoring the agreed upon method, there should have been elections. Even if we accept the idea that elections were not possible, they could have used polls. Polls can come VERY close to what the population of Iraq would vote for. It would be a VERY close approximation of direct elections. It should have been used as the method to select the rulers of Iraq. This is so obvious I don't know how people could not see this.

The selected men are going to use their influence to move the government from true democratic desires and toward the interests of the powerful. Money and power will be used to manipulate the elections in Iraq. what people effectively get o know will be limited as much as the powerful can limit it while keeping some appearances of a "free and open" public forum.
(1) http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040524&c=6&s=forum
(2) http://www.representativepress.org/IraqisWeIdentify.html
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3757431.stm
(4) http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1155990.htm

No comments: