Larissa
29th March 2003, 01:15
(I'm posting this on behalf of a friend)
Southern discomfort
By Hooman Peimani
In his Tuesday statement, Ayatollah Mohamed Bakr al-Hakim warned American-British forces to leave Iraq at the earliest possible moment or face the Iraqi opposition's military resistance. Being the leader of the
main armed opposition group of the Iraqi Shi'ites, the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SAIRI), Hakim's warning left no doubt that the American-British hope for a stable and docile Iraq run by a pro-American regime will not likely come true.
The SAIRI leader made the warning in a Tehran press conference attended by Iranian and foreign journalists. During the event, he stated that the Americans and the British sought to occupy Iraq to achieve their colonial
objectives, which are unachievable, as, according to him, "The world does not approve of any colonialism and occupation."
Hakim went beyond expressing resentment towards the war on Iraq to spell out the SAIRI's determination to resist its hoped-for objectives. He concluded, "Foreign troops must exit Iraq in the earliest [time]." However, if they chose to stay in Iraq, he added, "[the] Iraqi nation will resist by any possible means." According to him, failure to achieve their goal through peaceful means would make the Iraqis resort to violent ones. Hence, "We [Iraqis] will take peaceful measures in this respect at the beginning but we will use force later."
More at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC29Ak06.html
+++
There goes the "Shi'ite uprising" in Iraq...
Tomás
********************
And if you want to know why this is very bad news not only fot the Americans but also for all the other governments in the region, ask those who prevented General Schwarzkopf to go ahead and topple Saddam Hussein in 1991 (when it was easy) why they did it. In the process, you'll undertand also why Bush I incited the Shi'ites to rebellion and then let them be massacred
by Saddam's troops. And finally, you'll understand why hopes for an open-arms and American-flag-waving reception for the invading troops in southern Iraq was nothing but a pipedream at best or a lying deception at
worst, propaganda BS.
If even I knew that, how is it possible that they didn't? So ignorance and political naïveté is not an explanation. They could not possibly hope to attain their stated goals. The war won't be quick and there will be no peace
after it "ends". The most probable scenario is indeed a Shi'ite uprising *-- against the Americans, and not only in Iraq.
It is not a possibility that they do not know this, so they must have planned for this eventuality. What these plans are, we can only guess. But it doesn't look good for the rest of the Arab countries.
It's either that or they *are* complete morons. Whatever it is, they *must* be stopped.
Tomás
***************************************
Southern discomfort
By Hooman Peimani
In his Tuesday statement, Ayatollah Mohamed Bakr al-Hakim warned American-British forces to leave Iraq at the earliest possible moment or face the Iraqi opposition's military resistance. Being the leader of the
main armed opposition group of the Iraqi Shi'ites, the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SAIRI), Hakim's warning left no doubt that the American-British hope for a stable and docile Iraq run by a pro-American regime will not likely come true.
The SAIRI leader made the warning in a Tehran press conference attended by Iranian and foreign journalists. During the event, he stated that the Americans and the British sought to occupy Iraq to achieve their colonial
objectives, which are unachievable, as, according to him, "The world does not approve of any colonialism and occupation."
Hakim went beyond expressing resentment towards the war on Iraq to spell out the SAIRI's determination to resist its hoped-for objectives. He concluded, "Foreign troops must exit Iraq in the earliest [time]." However, if they chose to stay in Iraq, he added, "[the] Iraqi nation will resist by any possible means." According to him, failure to achieve their goal through peaceful means would make the Iraqis resort to violent ones. Hence, "We [Iraqis] will take peaceful measures in this respect at the beginning but we will use force later."
More at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC29Ak06.html
+++
There goes the "Shi'ite uprising" in Iraq...
Tomás
********************
And if you want to know why this is very bad news not only fot the Americans but also for all the other governments in the region, ask those who prevented General Schwarzkopf to go ahead and topple Saddam Hussein in 1991 (when it was easy) why they did it. In the process, you'll undertand also why Bush I incited the Shi'ites to rebellion and then let them be massacred
by Saddam's troops. And finally, you'll understand why hopes for an open-arms and American-flag-waving reception for the invading troops in southern Iraq was nothing but a pipedream at best or a lying deception at
worst, propaganda BS.
If even I knew that, how is it possible that they didn't? So ignorance and political naïveté is not an explanation. They could not possibly hope to attain their stated goals. The war won't be quick and there will be no peace
after it "ends". The most probable scenario is indeed a Shi'ite uprising *-- against the Americans, and not only in Iraq.
It is not a possibility that they do not know this, so they must have planned for this eventuality. What these plans are, we can only guess. But it doesn't look good for the rest of the Arab countries.
It's either that or they *are* complete morons. Whatever it is, they *must* be stopped.
Tomás
***************************************