Papers lied to about elections to continue occupation

Some time ago I began a thread entitled "The President lied to start war"
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19321&page=1&pp=10

It was about how the escalation of the US involvement in Vietnam was based on a lie. The object was not to directly link the Vietnam war with the Iraqi war but to show how US public opinion can be manipulated to fit in with a political elite’s agenda.

So I read with interest a recent article and here is a quote from it that I have doctored.

"US encouraged by XXXX vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite XXXX terror", the paper reported that the Americans had been "surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a XXXX terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting". A successful election, it went on, "has long been seen as the keystone in President XXXX's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in XXXX".


Here is the whole article.

Sami Ramadani
Tuesday February 1, 2005

Guardian

On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading "US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror", the paper reported that the Americans had been "surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting". A successful election, it went on, "has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam". The echoes of this weekend's propaganda about Iraq's elections are so close as to be uncanny.

With the past few days' avalanche of spin, you could be forgiven for thinking that on January 30 2005 the US-led occupation of Iraq ended and the people won their freedom and democratic rights. This has been a multi-layered campaign, reminiscent of the pre-war WMD frenzy and fantasies about the flowers Iraqis were collecting to throw at the invasion forces. How you could square the words democracy, free and fair with the brutal reality of occupation, martial law, a US-appointed election commission and secret candidates has rarely been allowed to get in the way of the hype.

If truth is the first casualty of war, reliable numbers must be the first casualty of an occupation-controlled election. The second layer of spin has been designed to convince us that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis participated. The initial claim of 72% having voted was quickly downgraded to 57% of those registered to vote. So what percentage of the adult population is registered to vote? The Iraqi ambassador in London was unable to enlighten me. In fact, as UN sources confirm, there has been no registration or published list of electors - all we are told is that about 14 million people were entitled to vote.

As for Iraqis abroad, the up to 4 million strong exiled community (with perhaps a little over 2 million entitled to vote) produced a 280,000 registration figure. Of those, 265,000 actually voted.

The Iraqi south, more religious than Baghdad, responded positively to Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's position: to call the bluff of the US and vote for a list that was proclaimed to be hostile to the occupation. Sistani's supporters declared that voting on Sunday was the first step to kicking out the occupiers. The months ahead will put these declarations to a severe test. Meanwhile Moqtada al-Sadr's popular movement, which rejected the elections as a sham, is likely to make a comeback in its open resistance to the occupation.

The big vote in Kurdistan primarily reflects the Kurdish people's demand for national self-determination. The US administration has hitherto clamped down on these pressures. Henry Kissinger's recent proposal to divide Iraq into three states reflects a major shift among influential figures in the US who, led by Kissinger as secretary of state, ditched the Kurds in the 70s and brokered a deal between Saddam and the Shah of Iran.

George Bush and Tony Blair made heroic speeches on Sunday implying that Iraqis had voted to approve the occupation. Those who insist that the US is desperate for an exit strategy are misreading its intentions. The facts on the ground, including the construction of massive military bases in Iraq, indicate that the US is digging in to install and back a long-term puppet regime. For this reason, the US-led presence will continue, with all that entails in terms of bloodshed and destruction.

In the run-up to the poll, much of the western media presented it as a high-noon shootout between the terrorist Zarqawi and the Iraqi people, with the occupation forces doing their best to enable the people to defeat the fiendish, one-legged Jordanian murderer. In reality, Zarqawi-style sectarian violence is not only condemned by Iraqis across the political spectrum, including supporters of the resistance, but is widely seen as having had a blind eye turned to it by the occupation authorities. Such attitudes are dismissed by outsiders, but the record of John Negroponte, the US ambassador in Baghdad, of backing terror gangs in central America in the 80s has fuelled these fears, as has Seymour Hirsh's reports on the Pentagon's assassination squads and enthusiasm for the "Salvador option".

An honest analysis of the social and political map of Iraq reveals that Iraqis are increasingly united in their determination to end the occupation. Whether they participated in or boycotted Sunday's exercise, this political bond will soon reassert itself - just as it did in Vietnam - despite tactical differences, and despite the US-led occupation's attempts to dominate Iraqis by inflaming sectarian and ethnic divisions.

· Sami Ramadani was a political refugee from Saddam Hussein's regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University



What are your thoughts?

 

I think you brought up some good points in there by reflecting upon the historical involvement of the US in Iraq which, in my opinion, not too many people do when discussing this very fragile and complicated situation. After all, history reapeats itself until we learn from our mistakes.


Who are the terrorists of today? They are yesterday's freedom fighters, supported by the United States. The neo-cons forget we put Saddam Hussien in power and gave him chemical weapons, that we trained Al Quada during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Karma can be a bitch. Here's a good joke "Why is Bush so sure that Saddam Hussein has WMD? B/c he has the receipt."

I feel that the past actions of the US are starting to catch back up w/ it and we are seeing the results. This, and the oil peak, will be the downfall to the US.

Peace & Love

 

I learned about the weapons in a sociology class. These were a few I found, but I try to base my facts on more than one source, like reading articles in magazines, books, etc. I don't mean to sound critical of you, but I trust websites just a little more than I trust Bush. Lol

Here's links about chemical weapon use & US links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/chemical_warfare.stm
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

 

Unlike the band of murderers in Iraq, the Viet Cong actually had an articulate (albeit flawed) political philosophy, a long history of resistance, and widespread popular support.

 

From the BBC article. They also forgot to mention that the U.S. and Britain were the only two contries to veto the U.N. resolution condemning Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

"In 1988 Iraq turned its chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds in the north of the country.

Some Kurdish guerrilla forces had joined the Iranian offensive.

On 16 March 1988, Iraq dropped bombs containing mustard gas, Sarin and Tabun on the Kurdish city of Halabja.

Estimates of the number of civilians killed range from 3,200 to 5,000, with many survivors suffering long-term health problems.

Chemical weapons were also used during Iraq's "Anfal" offensive - a seven-month scorched-earth campaign in which an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Kurdish villagers were killed or disappeared, and hundreds of villages were razed.

A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war."