“the US will never leave Iraq, unless…”
The ultimate nightmare for White House/Pentagon designs on Middle East energy resources is not Iran after all: it’s a unified Iraqi resistance, comprising not only Sunnis but also Shi’ites.
“It’s the resistance, stupid” – along with “it’s the oil, stupid”. The intimate connection means there’s no way for Washington to control Iraq’s oil without protecting it with a string of sprawling military “super-bases”.
The ultimate, unspoken taboo of the Iraq tragedy is that the US will never leave Iraq, unless, of course, it is kicked out. And that’s exactly what the makings of a unified Sunni-Shi’ite resistance is set to accomplish…
Legume Sam:
So the people, both over here and over there, want the US out of Iraq. But the US political elites won’t budge — the US stays in Iraq, providing aid for predatory corporations.
How long do you all think this situation will last?
17 October 2007, 8:43 amSam:
See this remarkable and very disturbing set of videos on Blackwater:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/174.html
18 October 2007, 12:50 pmSam:
Here’s another one, on the mysterious Carlyle Group:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/46.html
18 October 2007, 1:41 pmTimothy R. Anderson:
L.S. your question was ” How long do you all think this situation will last ? ” I am gonna guess ……. It will last 1,500 more days, at
20 October 2007, 1:58 pmleast. One way or another, whether during a recession, or a Depression,
or a Democrat in the White House, or seven dollars per gallon gasoline,
or 45 dollar pizzas, one way or another . . The USA ‘s government
has its paws in the whole of Iraq for at least 1,500 more days.
Tim
Timothy R. Anderson:
And I hope I am wrong.
20 October 2007, 1:59 pmBela Berg:
“Providing aid for predatory corporations?”. I’m unconvinced–certainly if these corporations be “big oil.”. (The likes of Blackwater are certainly another story.). Isn’t the US government itself the predator, sitting atop a giant and historically underdeveloped pool of oil to control Japanese and European oil consumption? Do the BPs and Exxons really want such disruption and instability? I’m sure they’d love to be handed Iraqi oil on Bremer’s privatizing platter, but it ain’t happening and it ain’t gonna happen.
20 October 2007, 7:28 pmBela Berg:
Am I way off here, or is the assumption that the ongoing atrocities in Iraq is primarily for corporate benefit kind of like the Leninist theory of imperialism (mentioned elsehwere here on Feral Scholar) as being for the benefit of “monopoly capitalists?”. Not altogether wrong, but not the whole picture.
20 October 2007, 7:39 pmDavid Montoute:
hi Stan,
i discussed this article recently with Layla Anwar, and we both agreed that Pepe Escobar is way, WAY off-base with his analysis. Describing the visit to al-Anbar by the “affable” Amar al-Hakim, son and heir to one of Iraq’s primary sectarian killers, as a positive step is so myopic that it leads me to wonder about Pepe’s state of mind. The express purpose of Amar al-Hakim’s visit was to garner Sunni support for the “soft partition” of Iraq. In this he totally failed. And let us remember who he was speaking to: the Anbar Salvation Council are the Sunni community’s most compliant members. When I raised the possibility of some sort of rapprochment between the Resistance and Muqtada as-Sadr’s forces, this is how Layla Anwar responded:
“1) Sadr will NOT make an alliance with Baathist, neo baathists or a sunni Islamic Resistance. Because Sadr’s program is essentially a SECTARIAN one.
2) He may toy with the idea, to specific political purposes (even though I doubt very much that will happen) then will shove his foot like he does.
3) in my opinion it is not only ludicrous but also suicidal to make resistance alliances with groups that are PART of the Govt which arrived with the occupation.
And Muqtada al Sadr is one of them.
4)Sadr popularity is dwindling even amongst his supporters, ordinary shias… The fear element prevents MANY of them to come out in the open and say it.
5)the in fighting and I call them squirmishes more than in fighting between Sadr and other shia factions are political fights over territorial control and not fight in differences of political ideology.
Even though on the “current language” that Sadr uses and I say current because with him, it is never what he says it is.- is anti federalism. This is only a leverage he is holding to offset SIIC gains of power and not a true and irretrievable difference on principles.
It is if you want, the “popular” card he likes to play…for domestic purposes and also reflects some of the tensions within Iran since he is backed by a different group than those who back SICC
It ultimately boils down over control of territory and resources.
And not over the partition.”
Ultimately, if Sunnis and Shia are to unite, then it cannot be through the existing Shia organizations, whose agenda is radically different from that of the Resistance. What it would entail would, if anything, be the arming of nationalist Shia tribes opposed to both as-Sadr and al Hakim.
David Montoute
21 October 2007, 12:02 pmStan:
These assertions are as good as anyone else’s who cannot see into the mind of Sadr or any of the other actors in Iraq right now.
I can’t judge anything except by what the various principles have done (I’m as skeptical as the next person on what public pronouncments by any “leader” say, because they are always instrumental pronouncements.
But Sadr has made alliances with Ba’athists and others, which is how he got on the US shit-list in the first place… in 2004, when the Najaf rebellion was essentially coordinated with the Fallujah rebellion. This signature event forced the US to hold the elections (at Sistani’s behest), and put the SCIRI into its limited and contradictory power. Sadr then placed himself in the position of king-maker and-or spoiler (the very reason weakened Da’wa leader Maliki is where he is now, crippling the US occupation).
I have my own questions about some of the things Escobar has written (especially his insistence that the US is preparing an attack on Iran, which I don’t believe). But his belief that any forms of unity, even transient ones (as they all must be until the political strange attractor of foreign military occupation is removed), can threaten the US with a tactical defeat is a truth that none here in the US dare speak. The ghosts of Saigon are hovering in Iraq.
Ms. Anwar seems as ideological as analytical here; and I know from my own hard experience that this can lead us to misrepresent… even to ourselves.
The 3rd para in her comments is the one that tips me off on this. Such categorical beliefs make for great dogma, but rule out tactical agility from the very beginning… ensuring irrelevance. Her reference elsewhere to Chomsky as a “zion professor” is also quite disturbing. Since Chomsky is opposed to Zionism, this can only be a reference to his Jewish lineage.
She seems to have almost made a recent career out of her Sadr-hatred. But neither Escobar nor Patrick Cockburn nor Chomsky have ever claimed that Sadr is the guy we’d want to spend Saturday night with… they (and I) have pointed out that his political instincts have served him very well so far (the US once swore he’d be taken dead or alive), and have done so even with his unwavering demand for an immediate end to the US occupation.
21 October 2007, 2:49 pmDavid Montoute:
Hello again Stan,
the Mahdi Army’s april 2004 uprising in Najaf was co-ordinated with its offensives elsewhere. But its relation to Fallujah was tenuous at best. As-Sadr’s rebellion followed the banning of his newspaper and a subsequent US missile attack on a group of his followers. Although there was, at this time, spontaneous Sunni-Shia cooperation, Sadr had made it clear, repeatedly, that the Ba’ath are anaethema to him. It was as-Sadr’s name that chanted at Saddam’s execution, remember? And as-Sadr himself was said to be present.
So we don’t need to see into his mind to know his intentions – it’s enough to watch what he does. Baghdad and Basra have both been cleansed of Sunnis, the latter constituting the overwhelming majority of refugees in what has become the biggest mass exodus since WWII.
This is not an appeal to any sectarian agenda, obviously. But i don’t think the anti-war movement’s activities are served by the kind of fuzzy wishful thinking that Pepe Escobar is indulging in here.
As for Layla, yes, she may have her prejudices, but neither you nor I are living inside the Iraqi meat-grinder, where things no doubt look VERY differently. So who are WE to criticize?
With respect to her remarks on Chomsky, these are the professor’s OWN WORDS:
“As a Zionist youth leader in the 1940s, I was among those who called for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine. When a Jewish state was declared, I felt that it should have the rights of other states – no more, no less”
Nothing too sinister here, but there is no doubt that Chomsky is fundamentally a Zionist, even whilst criticizing Zionism (the same could be said for Uri Avnery, for example). He supports a solution for Palestine that rules out a one-state solution and negates the Palestinian right of return. Lest One-State be summarily dismissed, we must remember that 30% of the Israeli public supports the idea.
regards
21 October 2007, 4:02 pmdm
Stan:
David, you are being intentionally dishonest, and I won’t pretend to see into your motives any more than I would Sadr.
First, Chomsky. Let’s see the full quote:
Doesn’t exactly sound like Jabotinsky, does it? And you can capitalize “OWN WORDS” all you want… your inference is not the same as what Chomsky meant, and you damn well know it.
As a supporter myself, in theory, of the one-state solution, I have to challenge the implication that failure to hold that positioin qualifies one as a Zionist.
I was a right-wing libertarian as a youth… people change, but when we tell about those changes, we don’t deserve to have our tellings taken out of context to rationalize the bigotry of a source.
The Sadrists are no innocent lambs; they are not even alwasys a cohesive and disciplined poltico-military force. But the lion’s share of Shia-instigated targeting of Sunnis has been by the SCIRI, who not only are not the same as Sadrist, but so opposed to Sadr’s repeatedly stated anti-federalism that they required miniature treaty talks to stop them shooting at one another… in spite of your colleague’s simplistic reduction of this rivalry to “territory.”
This conflation — coming from someone who seems at least conversant with the actual situation in Iraq — can only be deemed dishonesty. This rivalry between Hakim and Sadr is real, and it is immensely important. To deliberately disappear that in some generalized claim about “the Shia” is unconscionable.
So Sadr cheered Saddam’s hanging. Duh. He, his followers, and his family were some of Saddam’s favorite impact areas.
That proves nothing about whether Sadr is willing — out of political pragmatism — to work with Ba’athists, when the Ba’ath Party was rather like the Chinese Communist Party, an administrative-bureacratic apparatus, with membership a prerequisite to do everything from teach school to process drivers’ licenses.
I’m well aware of Sadr’s 2004 activities, and have written about them at some length. No. the rebellions themselves were not coordinated, but once in motion — and I might note, repeatedly ever since — Sadr has called for Shia-Sunni nationalist unity. This is not an apology. It is an observation.
21 October 2007, 7:24 pmLegume Sam:
Bela Berg asks:
There might be a similarity of appearances between what are two radically different explanations in two different eras of history. But I don’t see why it would be necessary to invoke Lenin to explain why the US is in Iraq. Why not, instead, invoke Naomi Klein, suggesting that southwest Asia, like the rest of the world, was scheduled for a neoliberal “makeover,” and that the US is still in Iraq to continue administering this “makeover” because it hasn’t “discovered” an Iraqi proxy regime appropriate to the wishes of the ruling faction?
I think the US punted its prospects for a proxy regime in Iraq when former dictator Arthur Bremer signed the order excluding all those associated with the Ba’ath Party from public employment. My guess is that what holds the status quo together is that the rest of the elites really have no credible policy alternatives to what the Bush administration is doing.
To continue with Bela Berg’s other question/ objection:
The BPs and Exxons may have to put up with the instability of Iraq because 1) the threw their lots in with Bush from the get-go, and 2) the opposition (as suggested above) has no alternative.
At any rate, the above question about the US government being “the predator” is certainly on-target, but then we must ask ourselves, “who is the US government?” In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein has a line (somewhere in there) about the point of participation in government for neoliberals. Neoliberals go into government, she suggested, to do “reconnaissance work” for the corporations they work for, before retiring back into public life to collect on what they did when they were in government. And in the era of interlocking directorates, does it really matter what names the ascendant corporations have? “Halliburton” will do just fine.
If the elites really objected to the declining economic growth of the current era of capitalism, they’d do something about it. They don’t, because profit in this era of capitalism is now more and more about appropriating a surplus and less and less about producing one. (The elites probably can’t do anything about slowing growth, either: growth machine, meet carrying capacity. Carrying capacity, meet growth machine.) Thus the profits now go to the biggest thieves, who have stolen Iraq. Can’t get the oil out now? Put your money into futures.
And, once again, I see no reason to invoke Lenin, whose theories characterized capitalism in its pimply-faced and reckless adolescence. Imperialism in Lenin’s era meant direct rule. In THIS era, the US has only invaded one country, not a huge chunk of the world; and it did so because the proxy imperialism that worked everywhere else couldn’t satisfy the internal White House directives (see Scott Ritter’s explanations for more) that were in place from Bush I through Clinton.
22 October 2007, 9:34 amTimothy R. Anderson:
Currency advertisement.
I kept an advertisement that was published in the USA Today newspaper
within the past four years.
It suggests that the reader invest in Iraqi currency, even though, it admits,
that currency is not yet on the world market.
That advertisement is , literally, a wonder to behold.
The current Iraq War is a very, very good example of how the civilians
in war S get punished , bombed, shot at, kidnapped, raped,
bombed even more, punished even more, and killed ; meanwhile,
several persons far, far away from ” the action ”
are investing money in human misery.
Tim
22 October 2007, 1:32 pmBela Berg:
I didn’t mean to “invoke Lenin,” I meant rather to invoke Mr. Goff’s comparison of Hudson’s “super-imperialism” with the old theory of imperialism, associated with Lenin and Hobson. I will perhaps invoke (if that be the term) Naomi Klein once I have read her book. I remain unconvinced that the US gov’t. cares more which oil giants end up with sweetheart deals in Iraq (should that ever come to pass) than with its own ability to decide who gets how much and when.
27 October 2007, 12:30 amStan:
This is the nub of it. Many schemae will describe an economic system with this litle political wart on top of it… okay that’s hyperbole, but you see my meaning. The old structure-superstructure notion that is designed to inevitably lead back to a particular description of the “structure<‘ and therefore “prove” the accuracy of the description.
Rather than mechanical metaphors, we need to try organic ones. Our skins are certaily superficial, but they are also the biggest organs in our bodies, and serve an essential purpose.
The State is a skin. The US state is a global systemic skin… that will save itself at all costs, and that means subordinating accumulation methods and-or weilding them as weapons.
Iraq is making money for war profiteers, but that is certinaly not its purpose.
27 October 2007, 5:59 amLegume Sam:
Have you examined the matter in my post, above, where I said:
This is the question that has to be answered BEFORE we can refer to the US government as an agent in its own right, and not merely as an agency through which elite factions press their agendas. In an era of neoliberal political economy, “the US gov’t. cares” about the controlling financial interests of whomever is in charge at any particular time. It has no autonomous interest of its own.
If the “US gov’t” itself (whoever that’s supposed to be) really cared about its “ability to decide who gets how much and when,” it would control Saudi Arabia, whereas the reality is that of the Saudi Arabian ruling family controlling a small chunk of US foreign policy through its enormous wealth and its hand-holding relationship with the Bush family.
It is a staple of statist propaganda to be continually invoking the “national interest,” wherein are commonly justified the authoritarian predations of the CIA, FBI, NSA, “Homeland Security,” and the behavior of the US Armed Forces in far-off countries. Elite rule is like that — you tell the thugs and the masses one story, and keep the truth for yourself. That’s the secret Leo Strauss discovered in Plato’s idea of the “noble lie.”
The fiction of a “US gov’t” with its own “interests” serves to keep the masses in their place. This fiction is intimately connected to that other great fiction, the “Washington consensus,” wherein the separate elites promote their group interest in exploiting the rest of us through corporate oligarchy (which interest is implicit in the day-to-day operations of capitalist exploitation). That’s where Klein is especially good.
Current events, however, reveal the “US gov’t” as an agency, not as an agent-in-itself. For instance, why do you think the bin Laden family was granted White House permission to leave the US on a day when every other airplane in the US was grounded just after 9/11/01, without so much as an FBI question? Didn’t the “US gov’t” itself have an interest in questioning the bin Ladens before granting them exclusive, special permission to leave? I could cite a dozen other examples of where the “US itself” is not there to decide matters as such, but that’s enough for starters.
27 October 2007, 6:30 amLegume Sam:
In an interview in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher suggested that:
Thatcher was responding to a remark about “people constantly requiring government intervention,” but, generally speaking, this is the philosophy of the neoliberals. There’s no such thing as society, therefore there is no general social interest represented by “the US gov’t” or any other government for that matter. There are individuals and their families and their “neighbors.”
I do not intend to demonize this philosophy, here or anywhere else, nor do I wish to demonize Margaret Thatcher or the neoliberals. All I am really asking is that we look at who the “US state” is since, with triumphant neoliberalism, the facade of a general social (or national) interest is gone.
(The other main attempt to strip off the facade of national interests in this era is in the project of William I. Robinson, whose Theory of Global Capitalism was largely about a “transnational capitalist class” — I do not know elite sociology well enough to render a definitive opinion about it…)
27 October 2007, 12:18 pmStan:
Robinson’s book, Promoting Polyarchy, is the best and most comprehensive thing I’ve read on the machinations of the National Endowment for Democracy, and what it represents about the evolution of US foreign policy. The NED was instrumental in the last coup in Haiti (as wellas the failed coup in Venezuela)… Haiti… where there is negligible economic interest for transnational capitalists.
It’s important to distinguish between the state and the government. They are two different things, neither of them fictional. Refuse to pay your taxes and you’ll find out just how real.
Harvey makes the important distinction that overcomes the imho false dichotomy between transnational capital and the state. Again, this has become a more profound social contradiction with the financialization of the global economy, because financialization does not create surplus value; it uses the power of states (with one state dominant) to impose money as an empty entitlement… this creates “bubbles” out of fictional value, etc… but back to Harvey.
Harvey notes that each social phenom has its own “logic.” The state has a territorial logic that does not correspond well to the logic of global capital (esp financialized capital).
Within the territorial boundaries of the state, there is the more stable organizational network of the state (one that transcends changes in governments), with its legal and administrative apparatuses and its executive monopoly on coercive force; and there are successive governments… that is, the social network of people — often organized as political parties — who are currently in the driver’s seat, so to speak.
Then, as Gramsci and many many others have pointed out, there is an overlapping social network — also institutional (like the state) — that is civil society, which serves as a liason between the economic and political functions, as a unofficial patronage system (the other patronage system is the government itself, especially through the administrative apparatus of the state), as well as consolidating the legtimacy of the state among the general population.
This is very schematic, but as a thumbnail, it will do.
But the global system right now — the one in whose saddle ride the transnational capitalists — is inextricable from the state, especially the US state. It is a system that is simultaneously secured by monetary and military power… and money as well as militaries are products of the state. In this case, the US state.
If dollar hegemony and US military power were to disappear tomorrow, the world would look astonishingly different, and in short order.
Gotta run.
28 October 2007, 9:19 amStan:
Hopefully I can stay on for a bit… sleeping baby. and when he wakes up I have to carry him back to his mom.
The reason I have clung to this thread (and the one on finacialization) is that this is a very serious issue with regard to what some believe is a theoretical crisis on the left. I do.
By “left,” I am using shorthand for something inclusive that captures a political anti-establishment that might generally be called socialist. Beyond that I won’t presume to establish some authenticity test.
By theory, I mean something different than ideology… very different, in fact. Something far closer to the scientific definition for theory… a generally accepted account of some aspect of reality that is based on a preponderance of demonstrable evidence. One reason I have such an interest in non-normativity…
Theory is not advanced by developing the overarching framework, then plugging everything one observes into it somehow. It is the observation of phenomena, the identification of forms and functions and relationships, and the development of testable hypotheses. I don’t think the left does this very often.
When someone like Gowan does develop a hypothesis like his theses on the Dollar-Wall Street Regime, and supports it with hundreds of concrete examples, it is not sufficient to test it against pre-existing dogmas. The test of its viability is whether the evidence is true, whether there have been major exclusions to make the thoeretical framework stand, whether new developments and discoveries tend to disprove the theory, etc.
The war has been a kind of Rorschach test of the theoretical atomization of the left.
My own favored hypotheses have been (1) reffing Gowan and others, that “globalization” (financialization) is a reactive and not proactive exercise of US power in a capitalist world system that is itself approaching multiple and possibly simultaneous crises, (2) that US power in that system and at this conjuncture and as the basis of that reaction is fundamentally based on monetary hegemony backed up by military supremacy, (3) that the war is multiply-determined as (a) the logical redisposition of the post-Cold War US military, (b) the backstop for that monetary hegemony, (c) as a (failed) demonstration of US military invincibility, (d) as part of the strategic preparation for a global resource competiton in an era of approaching scarcity (with China and others), (e) that the objective of the war was to establish permament US military installations in Iraq, (f) and it is a strategic blunder in itys execution that was recognized early by certain elements within the dominant class inside the US, but that was carried forward by a particular government (the Bush government).
Corporate interests, even though some have profited by the war, do not explain the war itself. The Iraqis under Saddam would gladly have sold cheap oil to the US; just as Haiti represented neither a security threat to the US nor an economic interest.
The US state cannot function as a political godfather unless it demonstrates the willingness to enfrorce its political will, ie, a demand for perfect obedience. This is recognizable regardless of who fills the various positions in the government.
Yikes, gotta run again.
28 October 2007, 2:00 pmLegume Sam:
Stan says:
The history I was taught in high school was primarily that of the history of a political system that “became economic” only when the state was obliged to respond to economic events, eg the Great Depression, or when its actions precipitated economic events, eg the Panic of 1837. Reading Michael Hudson, Robert Brenner, Naomi Klein, EP Thompson, Kees van der Pijl et al. was a refreshing departure from this mode of historical presentation.
28 October 2007, 2:05 pmDeAnander:
The US state cannot function as a political godfather unless it demonstrates the willingness to enfrorce its political will, ie, a demand for perfect obedience.
“Beatings will continue until morale improves”…?
random musings…
All authoritarian forces — tyrants, juntas, kings, domineering husbands — need to “set an example” by beating and/or torturing and killing now and then, just as men (as a class) “set an example” by the way they treat prostitutes (or dogs, or kids) and cops “set an example” by the way they treat people of colour and the capitalist system “sets an example” by keeping some people in brutal poverty. The message is clear: this is what will happen to you if you don’t obey, this is how we treat people who get out of line, who don’t conform. Fear of falling into the untermensch class: people obey because they are afraid, so they have to be kept afraid. There was a reason why the Romans lined the Appian Way with crucified rebels and dissidents.
Although it’s far from full-on fascism (so far) the Bush Regime has been busily setting examples with its arbitrary detention and torture of “suspects,” and its harassment and surveillance of dissidents. A very interesting direction for radical sociology research would be the “moment when the worm turns,” i.e. the point at which people learn a different lesson from the example — i.e. not to obey, but to rebel.
But the state/economy (is there any difference and has there ever been?) has a carrot to hold out as well as a stick: “a job” and money, meaning security, a roof over one’s head, something to lose. When people still have something to lose they tend to be more obedient. The genius of capitalism is that it ties survival and the feeding of one’s children not to one’s individual skill, ingenuity, patience or good standing in community, but to the whims of the employer class and the market. Essentially — in the absence of land reform and local food security, a “second economy” outside the speculative market — the barons of finance (and the forces of the State which serve them as rentacops) hold everyone’s kids hostage.
The art of authoritarian rule is to tax and grind the peasants to within one inch of the point of despair at which, having nothing to lose, they will rise up as an ungovernable mob and murder the overlord class. It is not a pleasant art, but it is a very old one and well-documented, -studied, and -developed. The obsession of the Bush Regime (and the previous Clinton regime to a lesser extent) with ‘crowd control’ and urban warfare, with detention centres and surveillance technology, reflects imho the awareness of the overlords that they have ground the peasants down pretty damn far, the global looting has circled around and come home to roost, and it’s time to start watching those worms very closely — both domestic and foreign ones — as they have less and less to lose.
28 October 2007, 2:32 pmDeAnander:
Afterthought: I should perhaps note that the moment when the proles rise up as an ungovernable and violent mob is not one that I’m particularly eager to see. Mobs are not very smart, and their anger is too easily redirected (or fixes spontaneously) on all kinds of targets other than the overlords: women, immigrants, Jews, witches, commies, queers all get blamed for the poverty, the humiliation, the frustration of distressed and angry men in large numbers. Subverting authority with a distributed decentralised culture of resistance and autarky appeals to me far more than the “flashpoint” model which some activists seem to contemplate almost with satisfaction (the Schadenfreude temptation or ‘oh goody, the overlords are making life so godawful that at last the proletariat will rise up and go looking for some piano wire’).
28 October 2007, 2:39 pmTimothy R. Anderson:
First time in a long time. Iraq made its way into the ” News” today, and NOT for pleasant reasons.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-web-5-soldiers-killed,0,5055923.story
Among the mainstream American media ( oh-so-”patriotic” ), making
too much mention of Iraq is considered poor form. Bad manners. Not the thing to do. Stick out like a nail then you’ll be struck down.
There are those, however, including Iraq Veterans Against The War,
who have decided that, heck, the USA is MORE than the mainstream
American media AND if enough persons MAKE A BIG DEAL out of something then by golly it is a BIG DEAL. EVERY DAY it is a BIG DEAL .
That’s the thing, y’see……… Timothy R. Anderson
For more information please visit
http://www.ivaw.org
6 June 2011, 3:48 pmTimothy R. Anderson:
And another thing, quite frankly……..
The Christians In Iraq. Tough times, right now, to be in Iraq as any religion type of person. Tough to be Christian there, as well . .
http://www.aina.org/news/20110126203036.htm
I’ll say this now, because by gollllly, it is true.
Where’s the English-speaking reporter, JUST OnE Of THEM, people, just ONE, in Iraq today ? Where ? Which news-provider ?
Timothy R. Anderson
6 June 2011, 6:27 pm