Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Iraq's message to Mr Blair: we still need the troops that saved us from tyranny

JALAL TALABANI | 10.10.2005 18:34

EVENTS OF recent weeks have reaffirmed the need for the alliance between the new Iraq and Britain. The lesson of the ghastly drumbeat of terrorism, the rioting in Basra and the vile murder of the leadership of the Iraqi Anglican Church is that the battle of Iraq cannot be won by retreat or compromise, but by the vision and determination for which Britain is renowned. Above all, Britain owes no apology for delivering the enslaved people of Iraq from the hands of a callous tyranny.

Iraq's message to Mr Blair: we still need the troops that saved us from tyranny
JALAL TALABANI
The Times, October 10, 2005
EVENTS OF recent weeks have reaffirmed the need for the alliance between the new Iraq and Britain. The lesson of the ghastly drumbeat of terrorism, the rioting in Basra and the vile murder of the leadership of the Iraqi Anglican Church is that the battle of Iraq cannot be won by retreat or compromise, but by the vision and determination for which Britain is renowned. Above all, Britain owes no apology for delivering the enslaved people of Iraq from the hands of a callous tyranny.
The challenge is to show fortitude in the face of horror so that we can finish the job that began in 2003 of uprooting dictatorship and implanting a democratic government. Reforming Iraq, restoring a society distorted by fascism, was never going to be easy.
The alternative — to pretend that sanctions were working and that Saddam Hussein was contained — was an illusion. As has now been established, the United Nations Oil-for-Food programme was corrupt in root and branch. Saddam manipulated Oil-for-Food to become his personal chequebook for a campaign of international bribery and a trough from which his psychopathic progeny supped. Saddam’s regime openly declared in August 2001 that the sanctions had collapsed. Indeed, in 2003, as Saddam proclaimed his innocence to the world, his envoys were in Syria to negotiate the purchase of North Korean long-range missiles.
The Baathist regime, guilty of aggression and genocide, was overturned because Britain and the United States had courageously enforced the UN Security Council resolutions that others would barely support with words. Today the painstaking effort to enable Iraqis to express their views freely is also grounded in international legality. Foreign troops are in Iraq on the basis of a Security Council resolution, just as Iraq was liberated through the enforcement of 17 such resolutions that Saddam chose to flout.
Those who preferred the stability of the mass grave to liberation, and who raised their voices to save Saddam, but not his victims, have spuriously claimed that the war was fought to discover stocks of weapons of mass destruction. But Rolf Ekeus, the first head of the UN weapons inspectors, has argued that stocks were not the issue. Saddam could always re-create his stocks and until the end he could restart mustard gas production within months and nerve gas production within a couple of years. Moreover, Saddam used chemical weapons casually, gassing 5,000 Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988 and then using chemical bombs against Shia Arab civilians in 1991 — after the Gulf War ceasefire.
It is from this perspective, of the need to rebuild Iraq after decades of being run by a criminal state, that I have come to ask Tony Blair to keep British troops in Iraq. There are very few countries whose armed forces have the broad range of skills that Britain’s do, skills vital to the sometimes volatile situation in Iraq and skills that have been evident in your troops’ impressive performance.
While Iraq has often proved unpredictable, substantial progress has been made in rehabilitating a country that from the moment of its British colonial creation in 1921 was a failed state. Unfortunately, many in Britain are unaware of the advance of Iraqi democracy and of the desire of its first democratically elected government to have British and other foreign troops remain. Instead, some parts of the media have elevated the hooligans of Basra into tribunes of the people.
The stone throwers of Basra do not speak for the 8.5 million Iraqis who defied terrorist violence to vote on January 30, 2005. Nor do they speak for the vast majority of Iraqis whose democratically chosen representatives negotiated a final constitution in record time. That constitution reflects the realities of today’s Iraq and is, like the March 2004 interim charter, a remarkably progressive document. No constitution elsewhere in the Islamic Middle East is as democratic.
Similarly, those who attack mosques and churches, who murder schoolchildren and labourers, who behead foreigners and who kidnap humanitarian workers are not engaged in “resistance”. Those sabotaging Iraq’s first democracy bear no resemblance to the resistors of foreign occupation in wartime Europe. Rather, they are, in their ideology and record, contemporary representatives of the fascism that wreaked such havoc 60 years ago in Europe. They are supremacists and racists, as worthy of our contempt as those who practised apartheid in South Africa.
Nor do these terrorists have a popular base. They are drawn from a minority within Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority. They have no political wing and no manifesto beyond punishing their fellow Iraqis for welcoming British and American liberation and for daring to vote. Many of the suicide terrorists are not even Iraqis, but foreigners driven by religious fanaticism and al-Qaeda’s death cult — the poisonous gift of the Arab world that supported Saddam and now vilifies our nascent democracy.
There are occasional immoral voices that call for a new dictatorship to be installed in Iraq as, they claim, a less laborious means of imposing order. Order is certainly important, but so is freedom. A restored dictatorship in Iraq will be neither friendly nor benign. Animated by vengeance and fed by oil, a new dictatorship will again seek to make Iraq into the Arab Prussia and the overlord of the Gulf, goals that Iraqi regimes before Saddam aspired to.
To abandon us now would be murderously irresponsible and cynical. The resulting devastation would outstrip that of the spring of 1991, when the Kurdish and Shia Arab uprisings were encouraged and then betrayed. Even Saddam’s regime conceded that during those few weeks in 1991 that some 30,000 were killed. The true number was many times higher.
Building democracy in Iraq is not a fanciful quest, but a recognition that all other approaches have failed. True stability comes from consent, not from the illusory “stability” of dictatorships. It is therefore in our mutual interest that we pursue the cause of democracy. We may falter, we may tire, but if we persevere, we shall not be defeated.
Jalal Talabani is President of Iraq

JALAL TALABANI
- Homepage: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1818667,00.html

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

In Other Words ...

10.10.2005 20:36

"I know that the Iraqi People are united against my illegitimate, criminal, Puppet Regime, but I want to continue to receive the bribes the illegal occupiers are giving me, from the BILLIONS plundered by them, so please keep your poor kids in the country to protect me and my fellow cronies."

Do you think Bush or Bliar's people wrote this, or did they collaborate ... ?

Watch the Tightly-Controlled Media Eat It Up


He adresses very important issues here

10.10.2005 21:00

The important issues are all in that letter

issues of torture by the fascist coalition, of Iraq not controlling any of its wealth as its all been given away to foreign companies,of the permanent army bases to be built in the country by the Americans, of the illegal war and invasion of the country, are not real issues. They are mere distractions from the real issue which is to ensure that the foreign troops remain as long as possible.


This goes to show how much of a puppet state Iraq really is.

The president of Iraq is Bush and Blair


pointless reply to a now hidden post

10.10.2005 21:56

Hello Mr Murdoch, I see you are back again! I know that in your twisted brain you think that Tony serves Rupert, and not the other way round. Let me cut through the BS of your propaganda, and invite everyone to contemplate this question.

When Iraq was invaded, Blair and Bush gave their own, and all allied forces complete immunity against any crimes committed by them.

When the UN gave a mandate to the occupying forces, it gave the same protection against prosecution now and forever, for crimes committed during the occupation. This immunity was extended to all foreign mercenaries working on behalf of the invaders.

When the stooges formed their stooge government, that stooge government FORMALLY invited the invaders to stay, and gave the same TOTAL IMMUNITY to them.

To make this crystal clear, the invaders may freely rape, torture and murder (let alone all the various forms of theft and robbery) without ANY fear of criminal punishment. The invaders MAY, for reasons of MILITARY DISCIPLINE, try members of their respective armed forces in MILITARY COURTS, but this has NOTHING to do with the mechanism of normal civilian law. Indeed, the mercenaries that operate in Iraq are free from even this risk, and CANNOT be punished UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Now to my point. What people on planet Earth would give their backing to politicians who allow these same people to be raped, tortured, and murdered without ANY penalty.Would YOU willingly back a politician that said that you, or your family could be raped, tortured or murdered without penalty by an invading force???

Basically, you are asked to belive that Iraqis are sub-human, and are happy to accept a situation that would cause revolution in any civilised country. Of course, you've heard it all before. Two hundred years ago, people like Rupert Murdoch were telling people that ACTUALLY Black Africans LIKED to be RAPED, BRANDED, CASTRATED, EXPERIMENTED ON, AND WORKED TO DEATH, because they were made different to us. They even had people PROVE this in American universities at the time.

Here's a clue for the clueless. In the history of this planet, those that invade a country under ANY pretext always give themselves immunity. That nation ONLY becomes free once more when ALL CRIMES committed within its borders can be pumished within its courts.

When Basra policemen arrested red-handed British Terrorists loaded to the gills with guns, and bombs, and RPG's, disguised as arabs, in the midst of a murder spree, the UK government declared a death penalty on those policemen. The most senior UK ministers proudly stated that the British Army was free to commit whatever acts it liked in Iraq, and that NO IRAQI had any legal power to stop them. This is actually a true statement of the law. But then, Hitler murdered so many, many people under a true statement of Nazi law too.

Grrr- the article I'm replying to has been (correctly) hidden. I must stop doing that :)

twilight