Iraq holds massive anti-US rally

[Chipahualca]

http://english.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=172860

Iraqi demonstrators have staged massive anti-US rallies in Baghdad to protest the controversial US-proposed security deal.

The rallies were held as the security pact nears its final stages. Nearly a million demonstrators from different cities of the war-torn country participated in the rallies.

Denouncing the American occupation of Iraq, the crowds shouted anti-US slogans and called for ending the US presence in the oil-rich country.

"Get out occupier! We demand an end to the occupation!" shouted protesters.

The move comes a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the draft of the security deal to the parliament for final approval.

Last week Iraqi clerics including the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a nationwide demonstration on October 18.

On Friday, several Sunni and Shia clerics spoke out against the deal, as opposition, among Iraqis from all walks of life, was growing against it. The clerics argued that the Iraqi public knew little about the terms of the deal which could change the future of the nation.

Meanwhile, Sadr Eddin al-Qzbangi, a confidant of Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani said Friday that the Ayatollah has “expressed concerns about the secret provisions of the agreement."

Al-Sistani has also said any accord must have national consensus.

Al-Qzbangi said that although al-Sistani has repeatedly called for clarification of the deal, the details have not been released.

Al-Qzbangi urged the Iraqi parliament to study all the terms of the agreement very carefully.

The draft accord includes a timeline for US withdrawal by the end of 2011 and gives Baghdad limited authority to try US contractors and soldiers for major crimes committed off-duty and off-base.

 

[Sycophant]

...gives Baghdad limited authority to try US contractors and soldiers for major crimes committed off-duty and off-base.

What is the justification for that sort of stupidity?

 

[Museveni]

Well if they are off-duty and off-base they are technicly civilians and can be tried by civilian court. Dont think they can actully "jail" them in Iraq though. Only find them guilty of something and then the US courts/ Court Martial have to sort out the punishments if they agree w/ the verdict.

When it comes to the sunday-soldiers like Blackwater and other PMC's it's only good if their immunity goes away. Will actully be able to hold them accountable when they screw up unlike now where they can pretty much gun down US soldiers even without any consequences(except that the US administration might pull the plug on their operations).

 

[Chipahualca]

There were numerous anti-US rallies during the past decades, even under Saddam.

 

[fated]

The US military should seriously consider simply stopping all operations until the agreement passes. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to go farther than it does in protecting either side. The war is expensive, so there is no need to stay if they want to impose a caste system on our military based on their possibly immoral view of human law. I'm not saying that that is necessarily what they are doing, but it is one typical Sharia Law viewpoint.

If the Catholics are being oppressed, whether in reality or under the law, consider emancipating them and/or giving them a large endowment.

 

[fated]

And watch out if you accuse Israel of apartheid, as the Koran contains plenty of seeds for a caste system to be openly implemented in law as a service to God. Many Christians in Palestine suffer under such systems... They are being effectively depopulated.

 

[Stormy]

I do not understand why we stay if this is the general feelings of the people of Iraq. What good is being served by staying where we are not wanted and spending money that we do not have, and most of all... putting our people in harms way.. it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Here is a picture of the demonstrators.

 

[fated]

I do not understand why we stay if this is the general feelings of the people of Iraq. What good is being served by staying where we are not wanted and spending money that we do not have, and most of all... putting our people in harms way.. it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Here is a picture of the demonstrators.

The generally feeling of the elected leaders is that some US presence is still required for them to effectively rule the country. There is also a distrust between various minorities and the majority government, which could threaten the stability of the country.

 

[Chipahualca]

The generally feeling of the elected leaders is that some US presence is still required for them to effectively rule the country. There is also a distrust between various minorities and the majority government, which could threaten the stability of the country.

Iraq was a very stable country prior to US invasion.

 

[fated]

Iraq was a very stable country prior to US invasion.

However true that is, it is beside the point.

 

[Sycophant]

I do not understand why we stay if this is the general feelings of the people of Iraq. What good is being served by staying where we are not wanted and spending money that we do not have, and most of all... putting our people in harms way.. it just doesn't make any sense to me.

It's the Pottery Barn philosophy... As unpopular as the US war in Iraq is internationally (and in Iraq, and the US), the US will be looked upon even less favourably if they simple leave and Iraq collapses into massive instability and civil war. You broke it, you have to stay until you've fixed it.

Unfortunately that fixing it part is proving very complicated.

 

[ulu]

I do not understand why we stay if this is the general feelings of the people of Iraq. What good is being served by staying where we are not wanted and spending money that we do not have, and most of all... putting our people in harms way.. it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Bush Cheney etc aren't big on admitting mistakes.

 

[revolutio]

This protest is a quite positive sign though not exactly for the reasons the OP asserts. Its significant given who orchestrated it. Muqtada Al-Sadr's prior stance on opposing the occupation favored Kalashnikovs over banners or signs. This shows a major political leader in Iraq is willingly shunning violence and, perhaps more importantly, people are following this example. My major concern earlier this year was that if Al-Sadr shifted away from violence his support and influence would crumble.

 

[jcook922]

There's alot more pro-US sentiment than is really expressed in the media in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that Al Jazeera would ever willingly report on that unless a gun was held to their head, which is generally the way the locals like to do things over there.

Publicly supporting the US in Iraq is a good way to get killed, the Government under Saddam was stable because he killed opposition, my cousin in the Corps had to stand guard at the mass graves from Saddams regime. Is stability at such a cost worth it?

 

[fated]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081021/ts_nm/us_iraq_usa_gates_1

Door nearly closed on Iraq troop deal, Gates says


Well, at least they'll be there if it begins to collapse into a genocide. The UN will then approve later...

Iraq is playing a dangerous game... apparently someone on the outside is putting a lot of resistance into this... Probably Iran playing games with Iraqi lives, Iran likes to play games with the lives of people.

 

[revolutio]

Publicly supporting the US in Iraq is a good way to get killed, the Government under Saddam was stable because he killed opposition, my cousin in the Corps had to stand guard at the mass graves from Saddams regime. Is stability at such a cost worth it?

I think the stability that existed is exaggerated a bit. As is the case with most dictatorships, they can maintain profound control so long as they maintain a military or police presence, but lawlessness and dissent are far faster to spring up everywhere else and whenever that pressure is lifted. For instance he didn't even have illusion of control over the entire northern third of his country. And the southern portion required regular hazings to keep from openly rebelling.

 

[fated]

I think the stability that existed is exaggerated a bit. As is the case with most dictatorships, they can maintain profound control so long as they maintain a military or police presence, but lawlessness and dissent are far faster to spring up everywhere else and whenever that pressure is lifted. For instance he didn't even have illusion of control over the entire northern third of his country. And the southern portion required regular hazings to keep from openly rebelling.

Thus the mass graves.

 

[Chipahualca]

Thus the mass graves.

The american invasion in Iraq has led easily to four times more deaths in 5years time than were reported under 25 years' Saddam's evil evil rule. Easy math gives that the USA is about 4*25/5=20 times (!!!) more evil than Saddam Hussein.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

The american invasion in Iraq has led easily to four times more deaths in 5years time than were reported under 25 years' Saddam's evil evil rule. Easy math gives that the USA is about 4*25/5=20 times (!!!) more evil than Saddam Hussein.

The vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq, are at the hands of other Iraqis and your Iranian brethern who come across to fight on occasion. So don't put all those deaths on our hands, when your fellow Persians helped with sending innocents to the grave.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

There were numerous anti-US rallies during the past decades, even under Saddam.

Do you know how ignorant that sounded? Of course there would be anti-US protests allowed when Sadaam was in power you twit, cause he didn't like us either. Now, how many protests were there against Sadaam's government while he was in power? Yeah, chew on that for awhile with your own self-righteousness.