Arabs vs. Iraqi reality

New York Post ^ | 8/17/03 | Amir Taheri

[LibWhacker]

August 17, 2003 -- EVER since the latest phase of the Iraqi crisis started last autumn, most Arab countries have found themselves in a hole. What is surprising is that they continue to dig, making the hole deeper. The Arabs' initial predicament was understandable. Until the last minute they did not believe that the United States would invade. They hoped that the whole thing would blow over. One Arab leader described the crisis as "a summer storm."

[ex-Texan]

Great post -- Great Find !

[tkathy]

There is something wrong with these people. Their thinking rivals that of my liberal friends.

[ChadGore]

Good read.
Thanks for posting it.

Iraq is not Palestine.

It is one of the most important Arab countries, with immense human and natural resources. Even today, after 30 years of the most vicious tyranny and four wars, Iraq is generally in better shape than some Arab states.

And it's been defeated. Twice.

Thank You George W. Bush !

[varon]

The Arabs must ask themselves what it means to refuse to recognize the Governing Council in Baghdad.

Does it mean that the Iraqi state has ceased to exist?

This has probably been one of the most bass ackwards wars I've witnessed in my lifetime.

Can anyone point to the capitulation by the Ba'athist regime or their military? It never happened because they slithered into the underground and until the terms of surrender have been offered and are recognized by both beligerents, the de jure existance of the old regime continues.

Perhaps the Arabs are justified in not recognizing the Governing Council in Baghdad because it is not a legitimate government.

[angkor]

There is something wrong with these people.

In virtually all of their political expressions, Arabs look like spoiled, pouting, and irrational children.

[metesky]

Will the Arabs miss the bus again?

I believe it was Winston Churchill who said, "The Arabs never miss a chance to miss a chance."

[goldstategop]

More info from inside Iraq: http://www.cpa-iraq.org

[sd-joe]

>> "Can anyone point to the capitulation by the Ba'athist regime" >>

They have been utterly and completely defeated as an effective force. There is no effective organization there to even "capitulate". It is over.

[varon]

They have been utterly and completely defeated as an effective force. There is no effective organization there to even "capitulate". It is over.

You missed my point and like it or not it is not over.

The situation now is similar to a group of armed men storming into my house and chasing me, my family , friends and neighbors out. They may occupy the premises but we're going to be picking them off, one by one. Plus, until they have their name on the title it's still mine. Case closed!

[sd-joe]

There is a BIG difference between your analogy and reality.

Your house exists in a nation which is covered by law and is governed by a powerful organization that enforces the law (including such things as land titles).

Iraq exists in the international arena. So called International law is simply a bunch of treaties between nations, treaties which are frequently ignored or broken. There is no International government to enforce "International laws". (The UN may be any number of things, but it is NOT a true International government.)

It is common in the International arena for a group of armed men (i.e. another country, or a group within the country) to storm a country, take it over, and become the recognized rulers of the country. Like it or not, that is the way the world is.

So your analogy, while it sounds good, does not hold any water. It is over.

[bert]

There are no Arabs. There are several Arabic speaking nations of the Islamic faith but there are no Arabs.

[bert]

There are no Arabs. There are several Arabic speaking nations of the Islamic faith but there are no Arabs.

[Eaker]

Ping to read later.

[varon]

Iraq exists in the international arena...........//...........

............So your analogy, while it sounds good, does not hold any water.

Oh really?

If you can name me just ONE country in the international arena that has recognized the new Iraqi government, I'll officially declare you the resident political genius at FR !!!

You can't because there is no new government and as long as one has not been formed and recognized by other foreign powers, Saddam and his government, scattered as they may be, is still the government de jure and the appointed governor of the occupying powers is the de facto "ruler".

I haven't heard anyone in our government declare that Iraq has been defeated, the closest stetement to that effect has been President Bush's proclamation that major hostilities are over and so, it's not over till it's over! Wishing it so doesn't make it so nor does it make it so to fit a political agenda.

[sd-joe]

>> "Saddam and his government, scattered as they may be, is still the government de jure" <<

De jure means according to law, so tell me, just what law exactly would this be? Bet you can't.

As the old saying goes: "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
Old Saddam and his boys are not in possession of anything.

De facto, there is no current government of Iraq. The closest thing to one is the Coalition of the US, Britain, etc. De facto, the government of Iraq has been defeated, it has NO ability to carry out ANY of the functions of government.

Currently Iraq is sort of in limbo. It will have a government that will be recognized at some point. Certainly Saddam and the boys are not the government in any practical way. Say Saddam showed up and offered to sell Iraq oil to say Canada, do you think that Canada would accept his ability to deliver on this contract? Of course not.

It is over.

[varon]

De jure means according to law, so tell me, just what law exactly would this be? Bet you can't.

Enjoy your naivete.

De facto, there is no current government of Iraq. The closest thing to one is the Coalition of the US, Britain, etc.

Currently Iraq is governed by Mr. Paul Bremer, an appointed civil administrator.

De facto, the government of Iraq has been defeated,

Up until the last statement I thought you were just naive but then you tried to make your case in Ebonics and lost any credibility you might have had. De facto is you don't have a clue............case closed.

[sd-joe]

So you attack me personally, with no facts and no law.

Whenever one side of an argument resorts to simple personal attacks, avoiding any real discussion, it is a good indication that that side (you in this case) has lost the argument.

Since I prefer to not engage in an intellectual argument with the unarmed, so long, good bye.