Who in the hell is the enemy in Iraq?

[hiaasenrocks]

Why can't anyone answer that question? The reason, I think, is because if any supporter of the war on Iraq were to answer it honestly, they'd find themselves having to admit that the enemy we face is, well, ourselves. We aren't simply fighting against insurgents, foreign fighters, al Qaeda in Iraq or any of the other groups that we hear about. We are now fighting the Iraqi people -- an enemy we created. And when that truth comes to light, their war lies are finished. For good.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003410658">New Survey: Iraqis Want a Speedy U.S. Exit -- and Back Attacks on Our Forces

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4940DA96-ABAE-4684-B86E-831004B3185A.htm"> 90% of Iraqis Say 'Worse Off Than Under Saddam'

Case closed.

[AndyA]

1. Our enemy is George W. Bush, pResident of the United States.

The war in Iraq was optional. It was not mandatory, it was not in response to any action or threat against us. It was an option. And The Decider made the decision to go to war.

Iraq had no WMDs. They had not threatened us. They did not have the capability of becoming a nuclear power, and GWB knew all this before going to war.

When you look at the dead U.S. soldiers, the permanently injured soldiers, the dead and maimed Iraqi people, their blood is on George Bush's hands. He is the one who lied to the American people to get what he wanted, for whatever selfish and irresponsible reason there was.

Meanwhile, Iran became a nuclear power. The man behind the 9/11 attacks is still free, and the military action in Iraq is making life here in America less safe, instead of safer.

Given that, who else could the enemy be? George Bush is the enemy. And I hope Congress deals with him as such starting in January.

[burythehatchet]

3. Beat me to it, but its not a war its an invasion and occupation

[Monkeyman]

5. Add a few more to that list

Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others

[leftofthedial]

2. king george

and his band of not-so-merry thieves

[whistle]

4. Does anyone remember this video......

<snip>
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL

Tariq Aziz Speaks Out

Aired March 24, 2003 - 13:18 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Just a little while ago, Tariq Aziz spoke with reporters and I want to show our viewers this videotape. The deputy prime minister of Iraq speaking out for the first time since the start of this war.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TARIQ AZIZ, IRAQI DEPUTY PRIME MINISER (through translator): ... And if we talk in facts and figures, official figures, Iraq has the second-largest reserve of oil, but practically and most experts know that actually Iraq has the No. 1 reserve in the area. And the reserve of Iraq is not 110 billion oil barrels, but more than 300 billion.

Then the second objective that was very clear was dividing the region to redraw the map of the area, and they admitted that, even the general that turned to be diplomatic, Colin Powell. He said they want to redraw the map to the interest of Israel. Then Israel will become, as they plan -- after destroying Iraq and dividing Iraq and redrawing the map in the area and changing the region to small cantons, Israel will be the party that is more -- that is the strongest and the most influential in the area as a whole and will guarantee -- completely guarantee its dominance and control over the region.

These are the objectives since the beginning and all those who give more time to research and read books and give analysis have read that many years ago in the books and articles that were written by the engineers of the domino policy, like Paul Wolfowitz and others very well known.

And when they were preparing and planning for their aggression, let us remember how they put their strategy and on what strategy they worked and prepared the war since the war started.

First, they said that this war will be destructive, as it will destroy all the Iraqi capabilities to resist. They also said that immediately and after the start of the war, the leadership in Iraq will collapse. And they also said that the Iraqi people will support the Anglo-American aggression and that the Iraqi people will rebel and revolt against its government. And even the high-level person, Dick Cheney, at the pinnacle of responsibility there, he's a vice president of the United States, he said that the Iraqi people will receive the American forces with music and flowers.

I would like here to remind the colleagues in the media that this was mentioned before me when I was interviewed by many American media, like ABC, CBS and "New York Times" and other American media outlets and newspapers and TV stations. They said, "We have heard that the Iraqi people would receive the American forces, the invaders, as liberators and they will be received with throwing flowers at them and with music."

I told them, "Don't fool yourself and don't fool the public opinion in your countries and don't fool your armed forces, because the American soldiers, the invaders, if they enter the territory of Iraq, they will be received with bullets, not flowers and not music, but rather with bullets."

And if we take this factor alone and compare it -- and make the comparison, I would ask you to do that in your comments or commentary on this situation. I ask you to embark on a very genuine, sincere analysis to compare what was said originally by the American administration in the period that came before the aggression and after the start of the aggression. Go ahead and have a genuine, sincere, honest analysis of what they said and what we said.

In reference to the reaction of the Iraqi people, they said, "Who is with Saddam Hussein?" Saddam Hussein is isolated, in complete isolation inside Iraq. He has the army, the Republican Guard, not all of them, but a few elements of the Republican Guards and only the citizens of Tikrit support Saddam Hussein and the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people are against him. So the moment that the Americans start the aggression, he will be in complete isolation. And he will fight alone with but a small number of his supporters.

I would like here to draw your attention in this context to a number of facts. In Umm Qasr there were no Republican Guards. The division that fought the Americans and the British, and which is still fighting the Americans and the British, is not a unit of the Republican Guard, it is the divisions of the Iraqi regular army.

I also would like to draw your attention to the fact that the people who are in An Nasiriya or Sokashuyu (ph) or in Samawah or Najaf and in the outskirts of Basra and Zubayev (ph), these are not from Tikrit; you know, Iraq, these are not from Tikrit.

They also talked about Sunni and Shi'a and the Sunni dominance on Iraq, and how Shiites are against the Sunni government.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: All right. We're going to break away from Tariq Aziz. This is videotape that was shot just a little while ago in Baghdad. Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, for the first time holding a news conference since the start of this war.

There had been some rumors, speculation out there that he may have been killed in that initial U.S. air strike. Clearly, he is alive and well at this news conference, speaking out about very contemporary issues, including Umm Qasr -- the battle for Umm Qasr.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/24/se.13.html

[NNN0LHI]

6. Any Iraqi who has the misfortune of being shot or bombed by our military n/t

[jwirr]

11. Absolutely, and age does not matter.

[valerief]

7. Oil and its exploiters. nt

[jobycom]

8. There is no enemy, or there are a dozen enemies. We are just another

faction in the mix. Every group who is not us is our enemy. We are the enemy of every other group but us. Every faction is the enemy of every other faction. Alliances are temporary, and if any alliance came to power, it would split as the different factions within it fell to fighting each other. Every non-US person in Iraq who is on "our side" is only there for the moment, because their faction needs us until they can defeat their own enemy factions. We aren't even a power in the region, we are simply a tool of the other powers.

You can't bring peace to a situation like that with violence. You have to kill everyone to do it, and then there is no peace, there is only a wasteland. Bush keeps saying we have to "win." He doesn't even know what that word means.

Hussein squashed each faction with brutal violence, but the Iraqis in general knew that he would not cross certain lines, that his brutality was mainly against enemies of his peace. The Americans are worse, because we don't even understand the situation, so our brutality is arbitrary. We arrest and torture people because someone we trust tells us they are the bad guy. The problem is, the person we trust is just trying to settle old scores, and we are too isolated and ignorant of the real situation to understand that. So rather than using our brutality to fight the enemies of our peace, we just use it to make people afraid of us.

We don't understand the situation enough to "win." The only way for us to win is to get out, and that is only a victory for us, because it will stop the slaughter of our troops and the degradation of our nation. We have ZERO chance of bringing real peace to Iraq through our troops. The only chance is through negotiations backed by troops that all factions trust to be fair. That rules us out completely. So the only way Iraq can "win" is for us to get out, too.

Bush is an idiot, because he doesn't even understand the words he uses. Win, stay the course, move forward... all terms written for him, not words he even understands. Bush has never won or moved forward on anything in his life.

[BeFree]

18. Well said, jobycom

The US has no credibility in Iraq or in the region and all our presence there will accomplish is more death and destruction.

Sad that some people still think that the US can win anything there. The best we can do is get our troops the hell out, ASAP.

[TahitiNut]

9. Perhaps the better question is "Specifically, WHOSE surrender would end the 'war'?"

Sometimes, it's better to "live in the question".

There is no Battleship Missouri in Bush's future. There is no railroad car in Compiegne in Bush's future. There is no Paris Peace Accord in Bush's future. There is only death and killing.

[screembloodymurder]

12. That's an interesting question.

I'd like to hear Bush answer that question.

[TahitiNut]

13. It's the same question I asked when I first heard "The War On Drugs"

It's a sad commentary about the average American's attitudes when politicians are so eager to call everything a 'war.' I've had my own taste of 'war' up close and personal - and I detest the rhetoric that desensitizes people to a hellish insanity I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy - except for Cheney/Bush, of course.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Walt Kelly, RIP.

[H2O Man]

14. Evil-doers.

They hate freedom.

[Disturbed]

15. Anyone in Iraq who does not comply with the US Colonization

is an enemy.

[H2O Man]

17. Many who do comply

are "enemies," too. It is so out of control.

[SoCalDem]

16. Everyone who is not us.

:cry:

[applegrove]

19. I think the enemy in Iraq * would like would be any extreme religious

leader of a faction. They want the whole middle east to split into moderates and the yahoos. So they can have and win their third world war by backing the more seculars.