To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Noam Chomsky at Mar 01, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
It has been compelled to accept elections, to accept the defeat of its chosen favorite, to allow Iraqis to write a constitution. The state of the outrageous and illegal economic conditions imposed by the CPA is uncertain. A leading plank of the winning Shi'ite alliance was a timetable for withdrawal of the US-UK forces. Both Washington and London flatly refuse, and the US has already announced that its forces will stay into 2007. The elected leadership is under plenty of pressure to accept what the Wall St Journal calls "vague promises" of eventual withdrawal. But it's uncertain whether the US can sustain it's long-term plan to keep Iraq under US military control, by means of a dependable client state. The main factor that has caused the US to back down is mass non-violent resistance, including huge demonstrations, Sistani fatwas, etc. It should be regarded as a triumph of non-violence, I think. The "insurgents" are not a major problem for US planners. The US has such overwhelming reserves of violence that in that arena it will never have much trouble. But nonviolent resistance is a different matter. What can we do here? Anything we like: educational programs, protests, demonstrations,.... -- you name it. I don't know of any situation exactly like this, though there are others that have some similarity, and they have shown that an organized activist public can impose conditions that power simply cannot ignore. The Vietnam war, though a radically different situation, did once again support that conclusion. During the past year the US has been compelled to back down step by step from its plans for Iraq.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (41)

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Boogaart02, Yorick at Apr 05, 2005 06:27 AM
"Plain and simple", you mean like the black and white neo-con world view? Unfortunately the pattern of Iraqi violence is too complex for most Americans to understand taking the form of crime, personal vendettas, fundamentalist intimidation, sectarian grievances, and religious chauvenism. Iraqi inspired violence targets Iraqis, women, sectarian groups, collaborators, American soldiers, while American violence in the form of napalm, indiscriminate raids, unwarranted detention, torture, and sexual violation targets mostly Sunnis and radical Shia around Najaf. Resistance to the occupation comes from all sectarian groups in different forms against American soldiers and Iraqi collaborators. Of course, to understand this you would have to unplug from the matrix. . .

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By The, Roger at Apr 05, 2005 00:18 AM
"Actually I am having increasing doubt with the "violent resistance" in Iraq. Who are these people anyway? They appear to be just engaging in hit and run bombings without any political program or platform. Almost all of their victims are be Iraqis rather than American occupation forces. This does not look like any respectible resistance movement." You are correct. They are terrorists, plain and simple. The US removed a tyrannical regime with regards to Saddam Hussein and have installed a liberal democracy in its place - chosen by the Iraqi people. It was truly a marvelous site to behold. Iraqis risking death to exert their God-given right to vote and choose their leaders. Democracy in Iraq will be a shining example to the generally autocratic Middle East, aside from Israel. Of course, the Far Left won't have anything good to say about that. That's why honest Lefties like Christopher Hitchens are becoming disgusted with the whole charade. Noam Chomsky has stated repeatedly that the US will never tolerate democracy in Iraq. Well, Professor, you are proven wrong yet again.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Shannon_r_white, Shannon at Mar 30, 2005 18:05 PM
My comment on "Iraq is a quagmire" for the US: I guess that all depends on the perspective from which one looks at Iraq. I suppose the situation in Iraq is not the ideal that the neo-cons dreamed -- an obedient Iraq gladly spending their oil money and manpower in support of further expansion of American power -- but some US power interests may still consider the situation a success. Currently, Iraq has no central authority strong enough to govern itself. The US can use the Iraqi territory and resources with near impunity. I speculate billions in Iraqi oil has been stolen by government interests, like the CIA, and these billions can be spent with close to zero congressional oversite (hey, it wouldn't be the first time). It's precarious for the US. There's still a chance the country may get a strong, independent government that could expel the US, but I'm guessing, the US is spending millions in bribes to politicians and payments to mafia-like crime bosses to make sure the government is weak and/or obedient. I admit in the above I made some unsupported speculations, but given the US track-record, I think they are reasonable speculations.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Boogaart02, Yorick at Mar 24, 2005 19:36 PM
As to how long Bush can sustain Iraq's occupation, I would admit that to being an open question dependent on many variables. My sentiment reflects the fact that I have never seen any one articulate a formula for victory or extradition other than a unilateral pull out. I am also skeptical that the US can bludgeon the Iraqis into submission. If Iraq is a quagmire in the Vietnam senseless of an endless stalemate, mercenaries are not a long term option considering their cost. Lacking a military or political solution, I am not sure the occupation is sustainable. After all, Bush sold it on the basis of Saddam's maliciousness and the fear of the WTC attack. Those justifications are eroding and the wag the dog machine is growing increasingly desperate. A ten year occupation would cost Great Society*2 at current force levels. I think the damage wrought by Bush will be felt long before we reach that time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Boogaart02, Yorick at Mar 24, 2005 19:25 PM
Thanks for your comments. I am less optimistic about our economy for several reasons. From an environmental perspective I would follow the Club of Rome's dictive and say that the capitalistic system is not sustainable and that the warning signs from peak oil to soil exhaustion to climate change are becoming increasingly conspicuous. From a historical rather than an economic perspective I would note that all great civilizations collapsed more or less in conjuction with overexploitation as if self-consciousness cannot override our animal lusts. The behavior of capitalist elites is hauntingly similar to fourth century Rome for instance. From a socialist perspective the wealth generated by the economy is producing a lot of yachts, diamond rings, and mansions, but it has not trickled down. Neo-fascism is a symptom of this.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Shannon_r_white, Shannon at Mar 24, 2005 18:40 PM
I largely appreciate the comments made by "Yorick". I would take some issue with the statement by "Yorick" that the "US simply cannot afford to bankroll Great Society*2" or with the fact that the US is in a "very precarious economic situation". From the point-of-view of profit-making and GDP growth, the US economy is the strongest in the world. The debt load, while growing, is still at the low end with respect to other OECD countries. And best of all (for the US) many Asian countries are bankrolling the US debt in ways that will, in the long run, likely only hurt Asia. The US interest rates and tax rates are unbelievably low, meaning there should be no problem, in the short term, financing even greater military expenditures. The current manpower crunch can be solved by hiring more mercenaries. In other words, I don't see the US having to withdraw from Iraq because of macro-economic concerns. But the US is run by an aggregate of interests. Even if the US economy is healthy, if there's enough powerful interests that believe they'd lead even wealthier and/or less complicated lives with the US out of Iraq, then the US will withdraw. The bottom line is the bottom line, the dreams of the neo-con radicals be damned.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Boogaart02, Yorick at Mar 17, 2005 00:06 AM
I see no basis for concluding that insurgents represent no threat to US military planners? This theory seems to invoke the same flawed attrition calculus of victory that Vietnam era generals employed. The fact that the insurgents are not much of conventional fighting force is irrelevant as long as they can both continue to generate US combat fatalities and as long as such costs are meaningful to the US. There may be qualiatative studies that show the American public's high tolerance for the human and economic costs of a guerilla war, however, I suspect that something as drastic as conscription would set a ball rolling that would lead to Congressional investigations into corruption and the occupation that would sweep Bush from office. Second, whether the public perceives the cost of Iraq as meaningful or not it still accumulates and the US will in the end be revealed as much more of a paper tiger than they were in Vietnam. This has nothing to do with the size of America's opponent or their capabilities, but rather the US's very precarious economic situation. The US simply cannot afford to bankroll Great Society *2 and if the public does not pull the plug on Bush bankers will.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Boogaart02, Yorick at Mar 17, 2005 00:00 AM
I think we need to be careful about overly dichotomizing armed and non-violent resistance. From a moral stand point we may support the one and condemn the other, but is this a distinction that Iraqis make? I suspect that we are talking more about a distinction between Wahibis and a national resistance movement that takes a multitude of forms some violent and others not. Resistance might involve targeting US troops, supporting fighters, boycotting elections, forming trade unions, and for some people maybe all of the above.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Boogaart02, Yorick at Mar 16, 2005 23:53 PM
The revisionist theory that the US won Vietnam by at least containing communism in South East Asia is a provocative one, however, I would think that most of architects of that conflict both desired and intended to secure Vietnam in their sphere of hegemony. I think the destruction of vietnam was the cumulative result of a host of consecutive tactical decisions made in a dynamic conflict as opposed to a strategic policy from the outset or any point of time, although the result of US involvement did achieve the paramount goals of containment in South East Asia.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 13, 2005 14:07 PM
"I'm afraid I can't reply as often as I would like as I have to sneak on the work internet when my boss isn't looking, but there are plenty of people here who are always happy to have a debate" (Ninja) If debating achieved something, then yes. Maybe I'll make the odd post now and then, give a bit of info. that someone might appreciate. Apart from that, I'll use my spare time to ponder this vital question: Do ninja fish get on with piranhas? :)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 13, 2005 14:05 PM
"I doubt you are a loser" (Ninja) If you had my life, you'd feel that way. Achievements: none. Failures: many. It was probably a bad idea coming to a Chomsky board - whether you agree with Noam Chomsky or not, he's very intelligent and successful. That fact weighs down on me, reminding me of my own lack of intelligence/success. "you certainly seem to care more than most and from what you say it seems that other people's indifference is depressing you." (Ninja) Lots of things depress me. Not least my country, which is Britain - I feel like I'm a prisoner here - and the lousy weather. I'm the sort of person who likes to do things, not just talk about it. But I can't do anything - at least, not at the moment; and maybe not ever. "For what it's worth I hope you don't abandon this board" (Ninja) I thought I had something to contribute, but I don't really have anything to say. What I write isn't of much value, I think. I'm avoiding debating Chomsky's posts because I'm too stressed after reading numerous articles - and searching the Internet for info. - to then write about what's going on in the world. I also forget a lot of facts.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Shannon_r_white, Shannon at Mar 12, 2005 00:10 AM
I disagree with Mr. Chomsky. The non-violent resistance by the Shi'ite alliance, is backed-up implicitly by the threat of violence. If it wasn't for the strength of Shi'ite militias like SCIRI, whose leadership has excellent relations with Sistani, it is doubtful that the US would have heeded the demonstrations, fatwas, etc. Sistani demonstrated that he had the backing of a large constituency possessing AKs and RPGs. As for Chomsky's statement that the "insurgents" are not a major problem for the US planners, I also disagree. Rather vehemently. To suggest that the insurgency sabotages of electricity and oil production, assassinations, and general harassment hasn't discredited the US in the eyes of Iraqis, and the world, in general, takes some gall. I don't think it's a reach to suggest the Shi'ite militias are more confident in their own capabilities to resist the US given the largely failed campaign to suppress the "violent" resistance in central Iraq. This insurgency is an "example" others around the world can emulate. As for what the US anti-war movement can learn from this, I say who cares? They're largely irrelevant anyway.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 10:08 AM
I think I will be leaving this board. I'm wasting my time here, aren't I? Michael Moore is super-wealthy from peddling criticism of the U.S.; Noam Chomsky charges speaking fees; both have very nice lives, while I waste the little money I have on books and other stuff that does me no good at all. Even George Galloway is extremely affluent, spending a tiny fraction of his wealth on Cuban cigars and suits that cost thousands of pounds. Loser is the term for someone like me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 08:30 AM
If you're "anti-war" in Britain you're assumed to be a supporter of George Galloway. I watched George Galloway on TV discussing Iraq, and he seemed too lightweight and too lacking in seriousness to be genuine. I'm not making any serious judgment about Galloway, as I haven't taken much interest in him. All I'm saying is: before we align ourselves with others, we ought to be a bit more circumspect about why they say what they do. - (I'll now stop posting before I get banned for writing too much).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 08:27 AM
By the way, Ninja, I wrote "a PORTION" of the protesters, not EVERY protester. And I didn't say how big a portion either. But I think it's a perceptible size (particularly if you count those who were against the invasion but didn't take to the streets), and it's a point worth making. We shouldn't turn this "cause" into a religion, and make everyone who supports it an angel. How do you think Catholic priests got away with sexually abusing children? To other believers, priests could do no harm, their intentions were sincere. Equally, not all protesters are genuinely concerned in the way we might think. Is Michael Moore concerned about the welfare of his fellow humans, or with accolades and wealth? He stayed at the Ritz in London, one of the most expensive hotels in the city. He seems to be living the life of a jet-setting CEO. Just because someone says they are left-wing doesn't mean I believe them. And just because someone is on the right, it doesn't mean everything they say is a lie or an exaggeration.

Reply this comment

Person

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 03:29 AM
Incidentally, I attended a large march and rally myself - I'd be a hypocrite if I said all this stuff and then did nothing. However, I felt a deep sense of pointlessness at the end of the march. Just what had I actually achieved?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 02:58 AM
Anyway, my point is if the American people had an altruistic nature they wouldn't be shouting about how great their country is, nor would they close their eyes and ears to the truth. They'd behave differently. Arrogance and conceit would be out the window for starters. So would "patriotism". No amount of propaganda can make a person with his eyes open believe Bush is telling the truth. Bush isn't just an inadequate man; he's a cold-blooded murderer and a liar, and if death isn't the end, he might be in for a rude re-awakening. He'd be an embarrassment to the American people, if the American people weren't such an embarrassment to themselves. After all the scandals and lies, the American people should, by now, be questioning everything. Yet they aren't. And so the U.S. attempts to mow down another journalist. Unfortunately, it's not just the media; it's willful ignorance. However, conceit prevents some Americans from accepting that their country isn't so great after all; that it's actually quite grotesque. (And, yes, I know there are some good Americans; just like there are good people in every country).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 01:41 AM
People give money to animal charities, but they still slaughter an excessive amount of creatures to eat, leading to unnecessary cruelty. Therefore, giving to a Tsunami appeal doesn't, by itself, make you altruistic towards humankind generally. Your overall contribution might be negative.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 01:26 AM
Noam Chomsky, for example, is not a vegetarian (I know this from reading "Understanding Power"). If he had a truly altruistic nature, eating meat would trouble him, and he would at least attempt to eat less meat. Perhaps he does, but I didn't get that impression from what he said in the book. Anyway, there's an example of using the fact that someone isn't altruistic to get them to go down a path they wouldn't ordinarily follow. Sorry if I'm being simplistic - but you get my drift, I hope.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 01:25 AM
But you misunderstand me, Ninja. I'm not saying it's all hopeless; we should throw in the towel and surrender. I'm merely acknowledging how things stand. If you don't know how the cards are stacked against you, you won't know how to proceed. For instance, many vegetarians think it's a good idea to get everyone to stop eating meat. They think it's possible, and hence use shock tactics - showing horrific images of animal cruelty - to try to get people to stop. But let's face reality: it's not going to happen; there's never going to be a large nation of vegetarians. So, having realized this, you expend your energies and resources trying to get people to eat less meat - perhaps citing the health benefits as an inducement. You can still cite the cruelty - and those of a certain disposition will become vegetarian of their own accord - but it isn't wise ramming the truth down people's throats, as this will probably have the opposite effect.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 00:23 AM
"It is also important not to take the responce out of the context of a society which consistantly pushes cynisism" (ninja) -- Sorry Ninja - got your name wrong! I'm drawing from my own experiences - not from the media. But I had to give an example, so I gave one.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 00:18 AM
"WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU WRITING ABOUT THIS FOR, PLAYER?"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 00:16 AM
From an evolutionary perspective, altruism requires making a sacrifice that reduces your chances of survival. That's not the explanation I wanted to give - just an interesting aside. And, yes, people have risked their lives to save others, so people can behave in an altruistic manner. You won't understand what I mean, nina. I won't even try to explain, because I'll just write reams and people will think - what the hell is he writing about this for?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 09, 2005 00:05 AM
"As for whether or not humans are altruistic by nature, check out the responce to the Tsunami appeal." (Nianfish) -- Giving to an appeal is not having an altruistic nature. You can still do "good deeds" occasionally without being altruistic. You're looking at it far too simply. Humans aren't that simple. I don't know whether anyone would be interested if I wrote a long explanation, so best I don't.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 08, 2005 12:51 PM
I think this has significance vis-à-vis the resistance we can expect to other government policies/"initiatives". I'll stick my neck out and commit myself to the statement that humans aren't altruistic by nature, which means you can bribe them to keep their mouths shut. Pay them a good wage, and they'll say American capitalism is great. "American capitalism is great. Here, you have some." :)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 08, 2005 12:50 PM
"Mass non-violent resistance...The Iraqis could teach us a thing or two." - I mean teach the Americans and British a thing or two. Well, the Americans I've given up on ("we're the greatest country on earth; yes we are, so shut up, SHUT UP!" - will someone throw the Americans their pacifier - dummy! - for God's sake), and the British - well, what can I say? A country with 22% functional illiteracy, inadequate skill levels, no culture, and rampant unpleasantness, violence is all we're good at - no wonder we've attached ourselves firmly to America's coat tail. I think Noam Chomsky mentioned British protests against the invasion of Iraq. What he didn't mention (or didn't make explicit) was that a portion of those protesters were only making their voices heard because they were worried about the future: if we attack an Arab country without good reason, we'll become a target for terrorists ourselves. Dead right! (pun intended). A woman was asked why she was attending a protest. She said, she had children and feared for their futures. Yes, people protested the invasion. But how many protested for altruistic reasons and how many for purely selfish ones?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 08, 2005 02:29 AM
:( The board is removing characters from the link. http://globalresearch.ca/images/MassacreX20ofX20Civilians.wmv Replace each "X" with a percent sign, "%". Then the link will work!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 08, 2005 02:26 AM
The link to the video should be: "http://globalresearch.ca/images/Massacre of Civilians.wmv" Remove the quotes!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 08, 2005 02:19 AM
When you play the video, don't forget to turn your speakers on and the volume up.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Mar 08, 2005 02:15 AM
"The main factor that has caused the US to back down is mass non-violent resistance, including huge demonstrations..." (Noam Chomsky) - Mass non-violent resistance in the face of U.S terrorism? The Iraqis could teach us a thing or two. If anyone is in doubt that America commits acts of terrorism, visit the following page and click on "Massacre of Civilians in Fallujah" to view a video of yet another U.S. atrocity/war crime. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FAL409A.html (Scroll down for a description) Or click here to download the video directly: http://globalresearch.ca/images/Massacre of Civilians.wmv Global Research (http://globalresearch.ca) is a site run by Michael Chossudovsky. He has a Ph.D in economics, and is the author of "The Globalization of Poverty". He's currently Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By K, Mr at Mar 05, 2005 09:15 AM
In Iraq they don't have as many televisions as in the United States. The population responds quicker to real life situations than the heavily brainwashed American citizen. In their middle-class brainwashed minds 'terrorists' are everywhere and Saddam had the bomb. In Iraq reality is reality not corporate media reality. Iraqi word of mouth spreads like wildfire because 'individualistic anarchism' was not embedded into their socializers. Unlike the brainwashed American's the Iraqi people have not been brainwashed enough to obey state rule unless it's draconian and torturous the rule of law works. Insurgency is widespread because everyone hates an occupier and in American Iraq it's control is not severe enough to enforce obedience and it's socializers are not even a factor because generations have grown up now to hate Americans and the majority seems to want them out. Bombing and sanctions did not work they should have invaded back in 1991. They'd be 14 years smarter than they are now at how to occupy a foreign nation. Watch the American/Israel cooalition perfect occupation much better than their Nazi teachers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 04, 2005 03:09 AM
I do agree with you bwong...resistance in Iraq is not quite like the PLO or Hezbollah or any other group from the past...it may be to early for us to tell exactly who these people are. And no, I don't think that if US forces pulled out today, tomorrow would be peace and quiet in Iraq. But I do think that it would be a FIRST STEP of a long and winding staircase that would hopefully lead to peace and quiet. And we can't jump over that first step and we can't move forward without taking it. And I could be wrong too...maybe if the US pulls out it'll lead to more turmoil (I think initially it would anyways) and then the "stairway" will end in another dictator who oppresses Iraqis...nobody knows this...which is precisely why we should've never gotten involved in Iraq...there is no predictable outcome!!!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 03, 2005 07:53 AM
As for the Shiite Alliance, I don't know if people actually voted them because of their concrete platforms or just because of religious loyality and the traditional victimhood of the Shiites. If Chomsky is right that a lot of people showed up to vote mainly because of Sistani's fatwa, that suggests a very fierce religious loyalty. In that case the Shiite Alliance would have won anyway no matter what concrete platform they run on(within reasons, of course). Chomsky may be reading too much into the vote.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 03, 2005 07:43 AM
Of course I could be wrong, these are just my observations based on admittedly limited information. Nijafish, thanks for the link.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 03, 2005 07:40 AM
"bottom line is: no nation in this world willingly accepts foreign domination/occupation and whether they are unified or not, there is a lot of resistance to US occupation - and the violence and chaos will not end until ALL US forces leave" Well, that is the crux of the matter.From the way things are developing I think it is very optimistic to think that violence will end if the U.S leaves. It looks like this is going to turn into some sort of tribal-religious rivary. I would suppose occupation is still one of the issue but it seems to have bifurcated into many other agendas. I think it is simplifying matter a little by painting all the Iraqi victims of the "resistance" as collaborators. Shiites, for examples, have been targeted quite a lot. While resistance movements do enguage in terrorism from time to to time but they also do other things. Genuine resistance movements usually have a political platform rather than just blowing things and people up and then melt into the dark.They represent something.The Iraqi "resistance" does not even look like other resistance movement such as the PLO or Hezbollah.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 03, 2005 03:07 AM
another thing to keep in mind is: despite constantly hearing about suicide bombers and Zarquawi troops kidnappings, the great majority of killings are still done by the US military and special forces... and yes...the "resistance" does kill Iraqis as well, but they do usually aim at Iraqis collaborating with the occupation forces...which is probably rule #1 of guerilla warfare - get rid of collaborators I'm not justifying their actions...I think a father who joined the police force to feed his family is not an evil person and does not deserve to die...but such is the thinking of "revolutionaries" - they have a cause and they are willing to accept the loss of innocent life in order to see that cause succeed...that is what the US is doing, that's what the Iraqi resistance is doing...that's what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and many more have done...collateral damage in the form of human lives

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 03, 2005 03:00 AM
I don't know this for sure (I don't know if anyone does) - but I don't think that there is a UNIFIED resistance in Iraq...some of the people are just fed up with the occupation...war is horrible in so many aspects...seeing death and violence first turns you numb and then makes you very angry...and when you loose loved ones, to a lot of people all that's left is go fight... on top of that there are different ethnic groups that are trying to compete for influence... then there are forgeing jihadists...people who probably never stepped a foot inside Iraq until recently and are taking advantage of the chaos...it's a great training ground for young terrorists...it's easy to recruit new ones there, given the level of hatred that the US has brewed...although I think the influence of these people is highly exagerated by US military... bottom line is: no nation in this world willingly accepts foreign domination/occupation and whether they are unified or not, there is a lot of resistance to US occupation - and the violence and chaos will not end until ALL US forces leave

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 02, 2005 05:58 AM
Actually I am having increasing doubt with the "violent resistance" in Iraq. Who are these people anyway? They appear to be just engaging in hit and run bombings without any political program or platform. Almost all of their victims are be Iraqis rather than American occupation forces. This does not look like any respectible resistance movement. I get most of this information from the main stream media so it is possible that something is omitted in the picture. But I haven't come across any alternative analysis which provide a coherent analysis of the so called "resistance". "Thre right to resist" is the premise of most alternative narrative. But I am not sure if the agenda was really "resistance against occupation" for some of these groups.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Znetblogs, Ethicenter at Mar 02, 2005 04:10 AM
Certainly, there are major differences between the U.S. situation and that in Iraq. There is no organized party of resistance within the U.S., while there are such parties in Iraq. But what forces the U.S. to respond? What can these non-violent demonstrators actually do to prevent the U.S. from taking the oil and implanting its bases? Is it world opinion, as with the Palestinian Intifada? Is it the threat of spreading resistance throughout the Middle East? Is it the threat of labor actions? Where, exactly, does the connection get made between non-violent resistance and changes to U.S. policy?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Znetblogs, Ethicenter at Mar 02, 2005 04:04 AM
I also find this encouraging. However, I would like to obtain a better understanding of exactly how this non-violent resistance has forced the U.S. to back down. Here in the U.S. we have had substantial demonstrations against the war which *seem* to have had little effect upon the policies of the Administration (although who can tell what they might have done without them--certainly we have not seen a reversal). So how is it that a country under occupation can attain real gains from such actions when here in the U.S. where we are still nominally free the overt results appear to be very slight?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

By Neptunert, Maninblack at Mar 02, 2005 00:49 AM
I recently put up with an right wing e-mail tirade (unsupported by references and sources) that Iraq had it's own military now and schools and employees now. It went on to say that the reason we don't hear any of this is because the "liberal media" doesn't want to admit Bush has brought Freedom and Democracy to Iraq. Then I read Choomsky blogs like this and FIND OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME about the Sistani non-violent resistance! If the right wing attempt to rewrite recent history is correct and we didn't invade for Oil, or WMD stockpiles (That was a blatantly false assertion at the time) or a Saddam/Al Quieda connection...then we've succeeded in bringing Democray and Freedom to Iraq and we can bring the troops (and our military readiness which has been diminished by Bush, Halliburton, Bechtel etc) HOME NOW! It's truly inspiring to read how non-violent resistance can thwart the plans of a cult of greed and incompetence leaqding this country inside Washington today. We should do the same thing.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (41)

Loading_border