As freedom takes hold in Iraq, Iraqi citizens are now beginning to join the Blogosphere. One blog in particular that I've really enjoyed reading is IRAQ THE MODEL, published and maintained by three brothers, Mohammed, Ali, and Omar. Real names? Who knows, but I love to read their posts. Today's post is especially good, one which I think everyone should read. Here is a portion with a link to the rest:
A LESSON IN ENGLISHOne of the readers sent me this document that was published about 2 years ago in the Guardian of London newspaper in which anti-war American artists declare their rejection for the American government international policy and war on terror and ask for support. Since such protests have never stopped, I decided to take a look and see what can I make out of it.
I was surprised by the numerous grammar and spelling mistakes in that document. Maybe the guy who wrote it was not really American? Or probably not very educated? Anyhow and as a member of the human race who wants to help whenever possible, I decided to offer my help to the peace movement in the world and do some editing to some paragraphs, as it may harm their reputation to leave those mistakes there.Yes I know it seems funny that an Iraqi help some Americans in writing in English but I thought I have attained some modest experience in writing in English throughout these months that probably made me more American than they (linguistically, I mean). Here are the edited paragraphs with the corrections in bold letters:
We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny -and when they’re ruled by dictators the right will be legally transferred to their rulers -free from military coercion by great powers. We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the United States government should have the same rights of due process. We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for, and that these rights are only ours and not for people who live in totalitarian regimes and thus don’t know or appreciate the meaning of democracy and freedom.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Shark
897 Americans dead so Iraqis can blog. Hell yeah, it's worth it. I know I'm proud of this preemptive war.
Oh wait, make that 898...
no... this just in... 899...
whoops, make that 900 American dead in Iraq.
Yeah. That's it for today.
I hope.
2 - Shark
"As freedom takes hold in Iraq..."
According to what, FOX News? Your denial is beyond belief -- but your ability to fantasize is admirable.
American reporters haven't been able to leave the "green zone" for the last few months because it's so bloddy dangerous -- so how the fuck would anybody know about "freedom taking hold" in Iraq?
BTW:
FIVE AMERICANS DEAD IN 24 HOURS.
Five, David.
Line up five of your friends and imagine them dead so some Iraqi fuck can blog and correct American's grammar.
Invading Iraq = Patriotism, my ass.
It's fucking treason and the Bushies are criminals.
3 - Eric Olsen
please see this about that
4 - Mark Edward Manning
David, excellent post. Americans have died before for their own freedoms and for that of others; Iraq is yet another example. Iraqis finally have the right to free speech, which is a beautiful thing, and is guaranteed by the new Iraqi constitution.
5 - Mark Edward Manning
"Some Iraqi fuck," Shark? Lovely sentiment. Nope, the Left that you represent isn't at all racist. Just lovely, I tell you.
6 - JR
"Iraqi" is a nationality, not a race.
7 - Mark Edward Manning
So what you're saying then, JR, is that it's OK to bash someone on the basis of nationality?
8 - JR
Are you saying it's OK to conflate the two in order to use more inflammatory language against another commenter?
9 - SFC SKI
Many of the reporters didn't leave the Green Zone during the calmest times, hell, they could have gone out the gate of the CPA compound and found as many man in the street Iraqi views as they needed. Hell I went all over Baghdad and parts South, I never saw a reporter. They sit in the Al-Rasheed and the Palestine hotels and look out the window and write something before they hit the bar.
Baghdad and Iraq as a whole are stil messed up, but there is a great chance that things will improve and become peaceful and stable, whereas before, under Saddam, there was no chance at all. If you haven't been there, you haven't seen the slow rebuilding, and you haven't talked to the Iraqis that are trying to work to better themselves, and their situation, because they know there is that chance.
Only the people both in Iraq and abroad who think everything can be handed to someone on a platter, immediate and perfect and complete, are dumb enough to sit around saying "All is lost!" usually coupled with "I told you so!".
10 - Eric Olsen
more wise words, SFC
11 - boomcrashbaby
This is insane. Is anybody actually reading what the Iraqi's say?
Iraqis are speaking and saying 'get the fuck out' to Americans.
We are responding by saying, 'oh this is good! They can now speak freely. This proves we have done the right thing and that we must stay the course'.
Lord, Rod Serling has been showing up at my house a lot lately.
Plausible case for war? Presidential accountability? Al Queda? Osama? None of this rings a bell to anyone?
So Iraqis now have the freedom to say....um, what were they saying? I'm not sure, must be some of that internet 'chatter' that Ridge talks about.
12 - Phillip Winn
BCB (#11), is the fact that you have the freedom to come here to Blogcritics.org and post your views important to you? Would it be better if you did not have that freedom? Are you willing to give up your right to free speech?
Isn't freedom worthwhile? The people who fought in the American Revolution thought so. Is freedom only worthwhile for people who live here? Why not Iraqis?
To have a debate about whether Iraqi freedom was worth the cost of the war so far is one thing, but to state that it is "insane" to rejoice at the ability of people to speak their minds, well, that sounds anti-freedom. I'm sure that's not what you mean, right?
13 - boomcrashbaby
to state that it is "insane" to rejoice at the ability of people to speak their minds, well, that sounds anti-freedom. I'm sure that's not what you mean, right?
No. What is insane is the logic of being somewhere "as long as it takes", to ensure that the people there have the right to continually tell us to get out.
14 - Phillip Winn
BCB (#13):
1. The people telling us to get out do not include everybody in Iraq. We are hearing from the most vocal contingent of the country, and as yet no surveys have been done that would cut the muster here in the U.S., for a variety of reasons.
2. So why are people telling us to get out? Is it because they preferred life under Saddam's regime? We don't need to go through the list of thing Saddam did to his people, do we? Of course, there is a group of people who *would* prefer life under Saddam -- those close to him and the religious minority that oppressed the majority. Those who lived lives of luxury must surely hate the interruption of their lifestyle.
3. Is it because they would prefer life under the rule of people who are currently trying to kill them? After all, most of the bombings lately have been against Iraq targets.
4. Is it possibly because, like Spain, and like Manila, they believe that the immediate pain, right now, of the bombings will stop if the US leaves, and they're not thinking about what that would mean next year or the year after?
THere is plenty of reasonable disucssion to be had, but not with people who are quick to call others "insane" for making simple and logical statements.
15 - boomcrashbaby
1. The people telling us to get out do not include everybody in Iraq. We are hearing from the most vocal contingent of the country,
Yes, I know.
2. So why are people telling us to get out? Is it because they preferred life under Saddam's regime?
Why would you draw that conclusion? So if it's not an American presence they want, it must be Saddam? It's an either/or for them?
We don't need to go through the list of thing Saddam did to his people, do we?
No, why would we need to do that? Perhaps though, we can discuss why the safety of Iraqi people is more important than the safety of Americans?
1. 2. 3. 4.
Actually, I could answer your 4 speculations about WHY they would prefer us to leave....or I could read their blog and find out for certain.
THere is plenty of reasonable disucssion to be had, but not with people who are quick to call others "insane" for making simple and logical statements.
I said THIS is insane. Not others. Meaning THIS viewpoint. You certainly do not have to have reasonable discussion with me.
16 - Hal Pawluk
Reading the Iraqi blogs, it looks to me like now that the voices are free they're asking for the same for their bodies through the removal of the occupying army.
17 - RJ
Hey, I wouldn't want a foreign army here either. It's perfectly natural and understandable that they want us gone.
HOWEVER, if we leave right now, it will be chaos. And vastly more death. And then Saddam-lite will take over. And then the 900 American dead will have died for almost nothing.
If we stay the course, Iraq may truly be free. It may be a lighthouse for the rest of the Arab world. And it may cost another 900 American dead before the insurgency is crushed and US troops can leave.
Is it all worth it? That's subjective. But leaving now would be the worst possible scenario, for all involved.
18 - Hal Pawluk
If we stay the course, Iraq may truly be free.
While I don't think we can just pull out, either, a reasonable scenario based on historical precedent is that after the U. S. leaves, Iraq will turn into a semi-totalitarian/dictatorial state, perhaps along the lines of Egypt (or worse), probably in less than twenty years.
(I'm writing this down and will check back with you in 2024.)
19 - RJ
Heh.
Maybe. I hope not. We'll see. :-/
20 - Corinna Hasofferett
Here is one of the brilliant Iranian bloggers:
http://www11.brinkster.com/ganymede/comment.asp?cid=100
21 - Shark
Manning: "Some Iraqi fuck," Shark? Lovely sentiment. Nope, the Left that you represent isn't at all racist."
Just for the record:
1) I don't represent the Left. I'm a "Reactionary Liberal" --
(which means I'm so conservative that I oppose the current "conservatives", can justify violence in order to preserve democracy, oppose any and all oligarchies, and I don't take shit from nobody);
2) I'm loathe all nationalities on principle.
2) Iraqi is not a race. It's a fake nationality imposed on a bunch of medieval tribes by the British government in 1920.
3) I know plenty of "American fucks", and reserve the right to wave at them as I pass by every now and then.
4) I'm still amazed that the once 'conservative', isolationist, we're not the policemen of the world and don't do nation building folks are falling over each other to paint a smiley face on the bloody disaster that is Iraq.
5) What will you people say when Iraq votes for a democratically established theocracy that is hostile to US interests?
22 - Hal Pawluk
4) I'm still amazed that the once 'conservative', isolationist, we're not the policemen of the world and don't do nation building folks are falling over each other to paint a smiley face on the bloody disaster that is Iraq.
Some people learn from experience, some don't. Some think it's worth facing up to reality, some think ego-protection is more important. Some are realists, some are Stepford-right-wingers.
23 - boomcrashbaby
I'm still amazed that the once 'conservative', isolationist, we're not the policemen of the world and don't do nation building folks are falling over each other to paint a smiley face on the bloody disaster that is Iraq.
There's a list of 20 conservative, yet contradictory platforms that is circulating around via email. I think you just came up with number 21.
************
1) The U.S. should get out of the United Nations, BUT our highest priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
2) "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
3) Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
4) The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
5) group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you someday run for Governor of California as a Republican. Then they are youthful, hollywood indiscretions.
6) A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind with little regulation.
7) Jesus loves you, but shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
8) If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9) A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.
10) HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.
11) Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
12) Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
13) Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, but then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his reelection campaign as the "war president".
14) A president lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense. A president lying about WMD existence, to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and occupation, in which thousands of soldiers and civilians die, is, somehow, a solid 'defense' policy in a 'war against terrorism'.
15) Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, AFTER we rewrite the Constitution giving government the power to decide who is in your family.
16) The public has a right to know about Hilary Clinton's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.
17) What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s was of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
18) Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a "spirit of international harmony".
19) Affirmative Action is wrong, but it is OK for your Daddy and his friends (here and in Saudi Arabia) to fix it so you can graduate from Yale without studying much, dodge the draft in the Texas National Guard, get the Governorship of Texas, and then have the Supreme Court appoint you President of the U.S.
20) Toot the 'small government' horn to death but then spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same time returning as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.
24 - Justene
Boom, the problem is that "conservative" applies to a lot of people and rarely do individuals hold anywhere close to those contradictory views. My husband and I are both conservative. He is completely against gay marriage. I am for it. I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. He is pro-choice and pro-death penalty. We both support open borders.
I assume my liberal friends also do not march in lockstep with the "party line."
25 - boomcrashbaby
Actually, Justene, I looked at the email again, and it said contradictory Republican platform, not conservative. My error, but still pretty well aligned with the same base.
Of course, I realize that not all members of a certain group or political bent agree with their platform 100%. But it doesn't mean that the platform can't still be viewed as contradictory, right?