Iraq: After the Americans

Iraq: After the AmericansCorrespondent Sebastian Walker first went to Baghdad in June 2003 and spent the next several years reporting un-embedded from Iraq.

In the first part of this Fault Lines series, he returns and travels from Basra to Baghdad to find out what kind of future Iraqis are forging for themselves.

Now that US troops have left, how are Iraqis overcoming the legacy of violence and toxic remains of the US-led occupation, and the sectarian war it ignited? Is the country on the brink of irreparable fragmentation?

After almost a decade the US war in Iraq is over. A new balance of power has emerged, but many people are living in precarity.

In the second part, Sebastian returns and travels from Erbil to Fallujah to find out what kind of future Iraqis are forging for themselves.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 50 minutes)

Ratings: 8.77/10 from 13 users.

More great documentaries

97 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Moonbeam Eleven Crocket

    This is rubbish propaganda... the oil contracts are signed.... More than 1 million Iraqis dead. The contracts are NOT good.
    Obama we wait for you to fulfill the last promises... you sing many songs but you cannot dance. Obama and Romney will devour more oil and millions will die.
    Iraq is worse than it has ever been, the bankers have pillaged Iraq.

    Increased output of oil for the elite only.

    Indict Bush and Blair.

  2. dmxi

    this should be understood as 'the wrong doings in the sense of doing good &
    do not repeat!' or 'kids,don't try this at home without parental guidance!' as
    this mess should make every patriotic,tax-paying & law abiding citizen sick &
    curious of their voted leaders!no more propaganda will lead my children out of poverty into the battlefield leave them renderless,uncared & scarred
    back into a society,that doesn't have the decency to take care of their own,that gave all !.....&... by god,the casualties of the enemy don't mean 'zilch' to the perpetrators!hail democracy!

  3. brianrose87

    As odd as it is these kinds of "mistakes" usually have the benefit of preventing them from happening again. I use quotes around "mistake" because it was a "mistake" that cost ~100,000 lives (military + civilian), and cost $1,000,000,000,000.00.

    Were it not for Vietnam we likely would have had a draft in this last decade (I would have been one of those drafted). Were it not for WWI we would have severely punished the defeated countries (leading to blowback... like WWII). Then again, we did invade, and continue to occupy, Afghanistan after we saw what happened to the Russian's in the 1970s.

  4. DannY GagdoU

    AlJazeera documentary about Iraq? The same lies, I don't think there are still people believe Al jazeera anymore.
    I am Iraqi and I agree that all politicians and religious leiders are liers and gangsters, but still, Iraq is not as Aljazeera wants us to believe.

  5. Jack1952

    You must have watched a different film than I did. It acknowledged that Sadaam was an evil man, however, the vibe that I got is that things are much worse today. Unemployment, unresponsive bureaucracy, gang violence, corruption is reported to be the legacy of the war by this newscast. I'm not sure what the lies are that Al-Jazeera is spreading in this film. Are things not as bad as what they are saying? Please enlighten me.

  6. drinker69

    War is sh*t. Media is sh*t. Politicians are sh*t. Check out the size of the American 'embassy' in Baghdad. That's not an embassy, that's a base.

  7. Jack1952

    I got the feeling the Al-Jazeera was highly critical of the oil contracts. High unemployment, power shortages, foreign labourers and the financial gains from the oil industry going to outside investors with no benefit to Iraqis, do not sound very supportive of the legacy of American involvement in Iraq. I heard all these things being said in this film. By your comment, it would seem that you agree that Iraq is being sold out. If you do, why would call it propaganda?

  8. Just

    Tell us specifically how the film is wrong. Are you currently living there?

  9. kris sto

    Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Nice Intro! It reminds some old eras....

  10. kris sto

    It's time to build your own nation but you have already fcuked up half of the planet.....

  11. kris sto

    If you are Iraqi and really believe that, then there is no hope on this universe for justice.....

  12. kris sto

    Al Jazeera is a fake channel, if you really want to know the truth about things and facts about this planet, watch BBC and CNN....

  13. PhaZEtwO

    "Al Jazeera is a fake channel, if you really want to know the truth about things and facts about this planet, watch BBC and CNN...."

    Sorry but I just can't help laughing at that comment...

  14. Hodd

    more like if you want a rigid narrative...

  15. Efritt

    sure lets watch the CNN and learn the truth!

  16. Jeremy Shepherd

    Probably the funniest thing I've ever read on this website. I truly hope you are joking, but a part of me knows you aren't.

    As for the doc. I always encourage critical thinking and to take everything with a grain of salt. But this documentary is very informative, and you can't call the chemical rainbow (agent orange, agent yellow, etc) that was used in Falluja anything but a barbaric and "nazi-like" attack. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children will be born into that radioactive stew, but I guess to most it is all worth it since we got Saddam. (not to mention a few multi-billion (trillion?) dollar oil contracts)

  17. John_mccenroe

    you are one pseudo ****** nazi who doesnt even know that had the sieg heil man hitler lived, he would have f'ed you

  18. Cacalatava

    compare to the us nazi were small timers...all the atrocities the us did in all the wars they created and they have the guts to say they fight for nation on earth ever did as much genocide like the us did.

  19. kris sto

    You missed my sarcasm ....

  20. kris sto

    I was being sarcastic with my comments about cnn and bbc. I stopped watching cnn many many years ago as it is obvious that it is a joke channel. BBC is more objective in many matters and hasn't yet reached the same level of disinformation. Al Jazeera on the other hand has all my respect. As i said i was ironic but i put it in a wrong way....

  21. dmxi

    'LOL' your comments to make sure as the commenters here are of different social & cultural background & a few are not familiar with
    'anglo-sarcasm'!(LOL....get it?)

  22. batvette

    "the vibe that I got is that things are much worse today."

    How would anyone know? Not one foreign journalist was ever allowed unrestricted access to Iraq when Saddam was dictator.

    Things may be "bad" but this was largely a result of settling old scores.

    I look at it like having a family of incestuous, child beating hillbillies down the street. It's going be real ugly to lock up mom and dad, put the kids with CPS, etc, and you can't say they'll resemble a "family" when it's over.
    That doesn't mean the right thing to do was anything but step in and stop a deplorable situation. 14 out of 21 million Iraqis lived as beggars in the streets, hand to mouth on daily UN rations. Saddam continued to erect palaces with solid gold toilets.
    Bob Woodward asked Bush if when the experiment in democracy is complete will we call Iraq a failure or success. In a rare moment of profoundness expressed in a not so rare manner of a simpleton, Bush answered "I don't know, Bob. We'll all be dead then."

    I think it's disingenuous to believe this producer approached this subject with any objectivity, never mind the fundamental issue as expressed above. Saddam created a society of animals kept as if in a cage. Brutality and solving problems with violent force is all they know.We went in and opened all the cages, it will be a few generations before they sort it all out.

  23. batvette

    2:40 second part: easy to blame "American weapons" but no real cause and effect study has been attempted. I can only wonder why the producer of this hack journalism piece focused on this and doesn't mention the Tuwaitha nuclear facility lootings, typical of what the Iraqis did to themselves. They took countless well marked (in 12 languages) barrels full of yellowcake, dumped the yellowcake into rivers used for drinking and bathing, and used the still radioactive barrels for storing and distributing water and milk.
    Well in this way we can say they've become Americanized. Blame someone else for your own stupidity.

  24. Drier

    If you watch the first part again you'll realize that both the sunni and the shia being interviewed state that they have traded one tyrant (saddam) with another (maliki and his regime). There is specificaly a mention that in saddams time yes there was oppression and killing but where one was killed then there is a hundred killed now.

    The US invasion was a mistake, it was based on lies and there was ulterior motives, rather than the one expressed, ie bringing democracy.

    In short it was a robbery, not just of the Iraqis but also of the Americans by corporations. Where do you think the trillion dollars that the war cost went to?

  25. Rick Kiriakidis

    You MUST be joking. So by getting rid of one bad thing you had to completely destroy the country, kill hundred's of thousands of Iraqi's, give control of the resources to corporations and put in a corrupt regime that has ties with warlords and gangsters. And not only that, but you duped everyone into thinking Saddam was related to 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction.

    Not to mention that it only is convenient to remove a dictator when its favorable/in the interest of the U.S. to do so. An experiment in democracy? B.S. The first thing that the U.S. did in Iraq was make sure the oil flowed, not that the people we're liberated and free.

    And let's not bring up the fact that we're only going to tolerate the people voting for a party that's friendly to the U.S., otherwise democracy or not, it dont mean sh*t.

  26. batvette

    Before posting replies, it would be advisable to learn one's reply should focus on a rebuttal toward what one is replying to, which was this:

    "the vibe that I got is that things are much worse today."

    "How would anyone know? Not one foreign journalist was ever allowed unrestricted access to Iraq when Saddam was dictator."
    You can't possibly refute that because it's the truth, then you go launch off into a tirade full of completely false or skewed talking points. I will humor you by addressing a few:

    1. "killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis".

    No, the actual casualties in the invasion was less than 20,000. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed each other. See: Animals. Cages. Opened.

    2. "Give control of the resources to corporations."

    No, we gave control to the Iraqis who awarded contracts to corporations, which pay the Iraqi people. They used to pay Saddam. Who else would develop the resources? I think you sound like a communist.

    3. "a corrupt regime with ties to warlords and gangsters".

    Welcome to the middle east.

    4. "duped everyone into thinking Saddam had ties to 9/11"

    Can you show me where it says this in the Joint Resolution, AKA the only written document declaring our justifications for the war?
    Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 because of our policies used to contain Saddam Hussein. Should we have continued them indefinitely?

    5. "had weapons of mass destruction"

    Again read the joint resolution. Nothing found false or untrue. You're aware the ISG judged Saddam was intent on manufacturing more when sanctions were eased? Why do you think Saddam allowed the inspectors back in? Because if he passed, sanctions would have been eased. Hans Blix stated this several times as inspections began. Besides we have reliable witnesses stating the Russians helped him remove all traces before the war began. Do you think he was stupid enough to leave them around and get caught with?

    6. "The first thing that the U.S. did in Iraq was make sure the oil flowed"

    You understand that when Saddam blew up his own oil wells in the first gulf war that was the worst man made environmental disaster
    (besides, IMO, Chernobyl, but the experts say this) in history? Were we supposed to allow a repeat? How do "liberated and free" people provide for themselves without their #1 revenue source?

    7. "not that the people we're liberated and free."

    Excuse me? Looting every government and public facility down to and including the plumbing fixtures is not "liberated and free"?

    I could go on but really your rhetoric has no place at any adult table of discussion on foreign policy. I'm sure you get a lot of back slapping at the OWS rallies right before you put the bandanas on and run from the tear gas canisters.

    The logical failure remains journalists free to traipse around a country and speak to people comparing the situation to a time and place where they could not.

  27. batvette

    Read the Joint Resolution. Not a single "lie".

    And certainly more than "one" expressed.

    As for "ulterior motives" you will find in the same document the terms "national interests" and "national security" of the US mentioned in several places.

    I hope you weren't sick the week in fourth grade social studies class they teach kids what that means in context with the middle east.

    As for that trillion dollars, Google "petrodollars" and tell me how you could justify walking away and leaving the Saudis to fend for themselves as sanctions eased and Saddam re equipped his military and sought to reclaim his "honor".
    Better yet tell me what those trillions of dollars are worth when the PetroEuro emerges, which Saddam was engineering. Google "Saddam use oil as a weapon".

    Do you really think the US came to control half the world's wealth because we're charming, smarter or work harder? No, it's because we were shrewd. Kissinger's deal in 1973 gave us a license to print money. Invading Iraq both paid our end of the deal and continued it.

    It was a bargain.

    As for that then vs now thing it's easy to find a lot of Sunnis thinking about the good ole days of Saddam. They aren't at the bottom of a mass grave, or running from Mirages and Migs dropping nerve gas bombs, or dancing as Uday and Quesay fire bullets at their feet at their weddings and make them watch as they rape their brides.

  28. Rick Kiriakidis

    "You can't possibly refute that because it's the truth."

    What truth? All you did was negate the statement someone made by basically making a statement yourself backed by no facts that a 13 year old high school child would make that amounts to you cant prove it either, na ni na na". Not to mention that your statement is false since journalists WERE allowed in Iraq, maybe not CNN or FOX news reporters, but who would complain about that?

    By the way, you do know that war was Illegal? But who cares about THAT, we're Americaaaaaah! f**k yeah!

    I started refuting every counter point to my points that you made but I realized that I'm basically arguing with someone who's been indoctrinated and brainwashed and that its pointless, so I wont waste my time. Have at it my friend.

  29. batvette

    "Attacks on the Press 2001: Iraq
    Saddam Hussein's repressive regime maintained its stranglehold over all of Iraq's institutions, including the press. Print and broadcast media are closely controlled by the government or by Hussein's infamous son Uday, who owns or runs a number of influential media outlets.
    Criticism of the Hussein family or top officials is not tolerated in any form. Insulting the president or other government authorities is punishable by death. Hagiographic coverage of the country's political leaders and vilifications of their enemies fill the press....
    ...Foreign correspondents who are permitted to enter Iraq face numerous obstacles. Foreign journalists are required to travel with government minders from the Ministry of Information. Travel outside Baghdad requires written approval, and traveling to a location not specified in the request is forbidden. During the last year, authorities banned foreign correspondents from traveling to Kurdish-controlled areas in the north of the country, citing security concerns."
    reference: pbsdotorg / frontlineworld / stories / iraq / inksdothtml

    as for illegal war... please cite the code and jurisdictional authority and in the unlikely case you figure it out I'll be happy to spank you as necessary-i.e; you're laughably calling it illegal but haven't the slightest idea what law was broken, or if one actually was, what jurisdictional authority presided or who would enforce a punishment. You're merely parroting a talking point from other parrots that sounded good and none of you have a clue what you're talking about.

  30. Jack1952

    A very insightful comment. We tend to think of world events as an episode of our favourite tv show. At this moment, however, things in Iraq are quite grim. The Americans gave the Iraqis the opportunity to create a better country to live in. It is up to them to make the best of it. If they don't it no ones fault but their own.

  31. Rick Kiriakidis

    Did you not watch the documentary where the people are saying things are WORSE than what they were with Saddam there?

    You dont create a better country by bombing and invading it, you create a better country by its OWN PEOPLE rising up against their oppressors. I.E. Lybia, Syria, Egypt.

    All the Americans did was replace one bad guy with other bad guys, why didn't they leave once Saddam was captured and killed? Why did they stay for 8 years?

    The people were glad to see Saddam go, but no one asked the Americans to occupy Iraq for 8 years! 8 years that DIDNT improve their quality of life, just made it much much worse.

  32. batvette

    "you create a better country by its OWN PEOPLE rising up against their oppressors. I.E. Lybia, Syria, Egypt."

    That was tried after Desert Storm, the Sh'ia uprising. Saddam filled mass burial pits with thousands upon thousands he brutally dealt with.

    "but no one asked the Americans to occupy Iraq for 8 years! 8 years that DIDNT improve their quality of life, just made it much much worse."

    Actually it WAS the Iraqis who asked us to stay. You seem to be implying that it was the presence of Americans that was causing the violence once Saddam was removed, that's just plain silly. The presence of Americans was the only real security, otherwise the death toll could have reached into the millions, like Rwanda. (hundreds of thousands there but a smaller population. we were criticized for not being there to stop it)

    The Sunni minority had brutally oppressed and victimized the Sh'ia majority (not to mention the Kurds) for several generations, we didn't cause that. We didn't create the conditions that made it so the only tool they would have to turn to solving their issues between them was violence and fear. Saddam did that.

    This isn't dissimilar to the criticism we get over the cold war. Evil America blah blah blah. The United States of Bad Guys yada yada yada, everyone with plenty of harsh words and only presenting the bad things WE did to win. All oblivious to the reality that those we opposed wouldn't have let them voice criticism at all. So go ahead and have yourself a good tantrum if that's what you need to feel better. It's not based on reason or reality and we're going to keep doing what we do, and know that no matter what we do someone will find something to complain about.

  33. Jack1952

    Did you read my comment? I said things were grim right now. This does not have to be the end result. That will be up to the Iraqis. If they insist on senseless sectarian violence instead of electing an ethical government things will remain grim. Ousting Saddam is an opportunity. Thus far the Iraqis have wasted it. It doesn't have to be that way. History doesn't stop after eight years. It is what they do over the long term that will tell us if the invasion was beneficial or not.

    The Americans do a lot of things I do not agree with but they have no control over the foolishness of the violent religious and political methods the Iraqis seem to feel is the proper way to run a country.

  34. batvette

    You do understand Kofi Annan's position as Secretary-General was merely an administrator of the entity, and had no power as justice or arbitrator? Not surprised you merely furnished his non binding opinion then sent me on a wild goose chase.
    Chapter VII paragraphs 51 and 52 of the charter explain why our actions were perfectly legal, your wiki article states this if you'd have read it through.

    Article 51 of Chapter VII says that, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

    That armed attack being Saddam's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

    "There is a good legal argument that it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the security council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious. If you follow that argument most of our domestic laws would be no longer in force."
    --Anthony Aust, Former Foreign Office deputy legal adviser and visiting professor of international law at the London School of Economics

    Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990, authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."

    U.S.-led forces in the Persian Gulf War accomplished the first objective swiftly, but the second has never been achieved. U.S. and allied air forces have been in nearly constant conflict with Iraqi forces since Iraq's aggression against Kuwait was repelled. Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions. Its authorization of the use of force against and in Iraq remains in effect.

  35. batvette

    We're not talking about Iran and you're only proving my point better than I could ever. If Iran has the same journalistic policies Iraq did before we removed Saddam, and all you know is you can't say people there are living in dire conditions, how would you know otherwise? What journalists are free to go out in the countryside and freely speak to the people without government reprisal for doing so?
    Yet they can in Iraq now, but they cannot in Iran and there we hear things aren't so bad at all. Where's the rebuttal? Not feelin' it.

  36. Rick Kiriakidis

    Maybe you didn't read my comment about how the U.N is a useless entity because even if one country had the balls to back Annan's and the council's position, its FUTILE. The US and UK have veto powers and can argue this stuff with legal B.S. that you posted. The U.N Voted AGAINST the war and the US and UK still went through with it anyway. So what does that tell you?

    My point about the journalism was that you said you had no way of knowing BEFORE Saddam's removal if things were better or not, which is ridiculous since the Iraqi's THEMSELVES are TELLING you NOW it was better.

    How do I get sucked into these dumb arguments anyway. I'm done.

  37. batvette

    "The U.N Voted AGAINST the war and the US and UK still went through with it anyway. So what does that tell you?"

    It tells me I'm having a conversation with someone who doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. When did the UN vote on whether the US and UK would go to war with Iraq? You're making that up, or someone else made it up and you believed it because it was what you wanted to hear.

    "the Iraqi's THEMSELVES are TELLING you NOW it was better."

    Wait, you've got me confused now. Are these the same Iraqis you got this from?

    "The people were glad to see Saddam go"

    Why would they be glad to see him go if things were really better then?

    Everyone's parents all tell us that everything was great in the old days. It's called selective memory. The reports we were getting from Amnesty International seem to tell a much different story than what the people are saying. I guess if they weren't the ones getting thrown off buildings, set on fire, having limbs amputated, eyes gouged out, having their new wives raped at gunpoint at their wedding party, etc, they may recall life was pretty good.

    All this film proves to me is that people like to complain and like to have someone to blame for their problems, and that memories are pretty damn short. Things were good before we came along, eh?

    It's a fact that in 2002, things were so bad 14 out of 22 million were so poor they lived hand to mouth off UN rations. Over one million Iraqis, mostly children, starved to death between 1995 and 2000. I'm sure they blamed the US for that too.
    In fact nearly everything they complain about in this film, such as power shortages, disease, malnutrition, etc, you'll find detailed in the
    wiki article on effects of sanctions on Iraq. (that means pre-2003)

    The violence is Iraqis against Iraqis. How did we do that?

    The one bright thing I can see is that as the film showed, we're out of there. Pretty soon they can come around to having no one to blame but themselves.

  38. batvette

    " The US and UK have veto powers and can argue this stuff with legal B.S. that you posted. "

    Well you said the war was illegal and I asked you to show me the law we violated, and you could only return with Kofi Annan saying it was illegal too. As I said, Kofi's just an administrator, not a magistrate or ruler. When I brought you the law it turns out we were not in violation of any law. People portray the US as provoking a "war of aggression" which is absurd as we were in fact agents acting on behalf of two nation states who were attacked and occupied by Saddam. The resolutions which brought a cease fire also allowed resumption of hostilities, to believe we were the aggressors would demand one forget the events of the past 13 years.
    Saddam was never submissive toward the idea of living in peace with his neighbors and was alluding provoking war with the Saudis even as the last round of inspections was going on in 2003. While it's a shame his people took the worst of it then and now, that's never been our primary concern. (though it was stated as partial, and we hope they make the best of it) Kind of like they say about parents sometimes, they chose their dictator poorly.
    Saddam had aspirations to control the Straits of Hormuz and have the world fall at his feet should he hold them hostage over Persian Gulf petroleum exports. Over the dead bodies of Saudis and Kuwaitis we had longstanding agreements to defend.
    No regrets.

  39. Shambo1

    B.P is now an British/American company. The poor always suffer when the US/UK empire want to procure more resources or land that doesn't belong to them. Nothing has changed in Iraq, accept the owners of the country. Its just another set of Muslim's oppressing another group of Muslim's. They took out one US/UK backed dictator and replaced him with a different US/UK backed dictator.

  40. Shambo1

    The US constitution says the Pres has to get Congressional approval to go to war. WW2 was the last time that was done. That is the law that was broken. Obama promised no EOs, yet he has used more than Bush did. He was a constitutional lawyer, that makes him worse than all the other elected puppets. You cant pick and choose what amendments you want to follow. The whole US political system is based on it, if you do, you don't agree with the way the systems runs and it should be abandoned. Saddam didn't play well with others, but it was fine when he was handing over the oil. As soon as he started talking about breaking from the dollar as reserve currency, play time was over. Gaddafi did the same and what happened to him. Strangely coincidental that Iran and Syria are also trying to break from the almighty dollar. Also strangely coincidental that the currency they all wanted to change to as reserve currency, the Euro, collapses and doesn't look to be in circulation for to much longer. Who hold the cards in the Euro. None other than Germany. The country America beat in WW2 and got their country fixed, newer and better than the rest of Europe, for free. They owe America big.

  41. Shambo1

    Most of you free western sheeple commenting on here are monsters. These are human beings. Who cares who got it worse under who. The fact is people are suffering. But then are are millions suffering all sorts of atrocities in yous own countries and you don't give a **** as long as it doesn't effect your little insignificant sphere of influence, so what do I expect, you have no humanity.

  42. Rolands

    Funny and not trusty movie onview of USA work in Iraq.

  43. Rolands

    You must be kidding. Try to research what was going on before year 2000 between Iraq and USA. Look at sanctions n stuff. America did not gave democracy and all the best opportunities because people will not get anything even if Iraq has the 2nd biggest oil reserves in the world It is all BP and Other wealthy country interests there.

  44. Rolands

    How many civilian people were killed by USA troops?
    Should i find official reports in Wiki-leaks and count myself?

  45. Jack1952

    If corporate groups come in and steal the oil reserves from the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government should do something about it. Canada is the largest oil supplier to the United States. We don't give it away. Our oil reserves have been a boon to our economy and most Canadians benefit from it one way or another. That's because our government and the Canadian people will not allow American corporations to cheat us. They would love to but we will not allow it. If some one enters your country and steals your natural resources, do something about it. Quit fighting among yourselves and killing each other and do something about making your country a better place to live. If the Iraqi people think it is the responsibility of outsiders to fix their country, they will be sorely disappointed. No one is going to do it for them. It is up to them.

  46. Rick Kiriakidis

    Man, you are dilusional. Do something about it? Who are the Americans/Brits fighting over there? THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THESE CORPORATIONS OUT. You REALLY believe that the Americans are there to stop the Iraqi's from killing each other? They could care less about one Iraqi life. They are there to protect THE INTERESTS OF THE CORPORATIONS. Wake the F*** Up!

  47. Jack1952

    The American troops left Iraq in Dec. 2011. There are 160 armed guards at the American embassy. That is all. Yet this is what happened yesterday in Iraq and the total dead in August of this year.

    Friday 10 August: 21 killed
    Haditha: 3 by gunfire.
    Dujail: 4 Sahwa member by gunfire.
    Muwafaqiyah: 5 outside mosque by suicide car bomber.
    Hamam Alil: 2 by gunfire.
    Baghdadi: 2 by IED.
    Baghdad: 2 policemen by gunfire.
    Muqdadiya: 3 policemen by IED.
    August casualties so far: 144 civilians killed.

    That is not my illusion. These are Iraqis killing each other. No Americans or Brits involved. The Iraqis could take advantage of the removal of a ruthless dictator but too many of them want to put themselves in same position of power that Saddam had. The allies can be blamed for not being aware of the political nature of the Iraqi citizen but that nature and the violence that continues today is no ones fault but that of the Iraqi people.

    The Iraqis do not necessarily want the corporations out. They want to share in the wealth and the economic stability that their oil reserves can bring them. The corporations are about profit. They will do whatever a respective government will allow them to do to make it. It is up to the people of that country to force their government to see to it that the corporations act in the best interest of the people in the country they do business in. No one else will do it for them.

  48. Rick Kiriakidis

    They left after bombing the place to the stone ages and killing thousands. There are still about 8,000 contractors there operating.

    Listen, the point is what does that matter when the people in charge are corrupt? The Iraqi's were happy to see Saddam leave because they thought they could control their own country, but they cant because the people put in his place are corrupt.

    The bottom line is that Iraq & Afghanistan are countries where you can not IMPOSE your way of life, your corporations, your way of thinking, it has to be done internally by the people themselves.

    Bringing peace with the barrel of a gun never brought anything but hatred, terror and death.

  49. batvette

    "The US constitution says the Pres has to get Congressional approval to go to war. WW2 was the last time that was done. "


    Please tell us what is the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Military Force on Iraq"?

    " As soon as he started talking about breaking from the dollar as reserve currency, play time was over. "

    OMG, you're like probably the third person I've seen on the internet who understands ONE of the reasons we went to war. If you're not American I don't expect you to sympathize with it but would remind you that Saddam was going to re equip his military with Russian and French hardware and continue his regional tour in short order- with America expected to clean up the mess. Since you are aware of the Petrodollar scheme you are surely aware we didn't get it for free, you don't think we should have reneged on our part of the deal and let him attack Saudi Arabia again, do you? We couldn't remain in Saudi Arabia after 9/11 but were still bound to protect them and Saddam was acting in a provocative manner toward them as late as January 2003.

  50. Drdocwilmot

    Aljazeera is today what Front Line use to be.

  51. batvette

    Who provides the petroleum products that fuel your car and virtually every other means of transportation you use? Who provides the petrochemical products that comprise most of the computer you are posting from, and most every consumer product around you? Most of the fuel that powers your home? Corporations. Corporations that you can buy shares of and own. Corporations that went to Iraq and other middle east countries generations ago, invested their resources in helping build infrastructure so these people had an industry that could bring them revenue.
    It's east to put an evil face on "corporations" but the fact is they are in business providing people things they need. And employing Iraqis to do so.

  52. Rick Kiriakidis

    Corporations that went to Iraq and other middle east countries generations ago, invested their resources in helping build infrastructure so these people had an industry that could bring them revenue.
    Wow, which middle eastern countries are your referring to? The ones with dictator kings/princes/generals ALL backed by the USA?

    The same corporations who go in and take all the resources, pay pennies to employees and make billions? The same corporations who have no morals and are only interested in profits? The same corporations who leave the USA/Canada/Europe and go to China and Mexico because they pay their employees pennies a day so they can make more profits?

    Buy shares of corporations? Who can afford to? Only the wealthy. Not one Iraqi citizen holds one share from BP unless he's a corrupt politician or drug/war lord. Most Iraqi's make 400$ a MONTH. You think they are thinking about investing? Even in the USA, who the hell can afford to invest these days? The richer 10%? You've lost touch with reality.

    The first thing the Iraqi Government should have done when Saddam got out was nationalise the oil so the people can benefit from it, you know, just like Chavez did? Oh wait, The USA hate Chavez? Why? Maybe because he kicked all the corporations out and decided to give the oil money back to the people? How many people did Chavez kill? Lets count. 0. So WHY is he hated so much by America?

    Arguing with you hurts my brain. Id rather go talk to the wall.

  53. batvette

    You're a communist. Figures. Probably bow daily to a portrait of Stalin. Venezuela, you must be joking.

    According to the United Nations, 32% of Venezuelans lack adequate sanitation, primarily those living in rural areas. Diseases ranging from typhoid, yellow fever, cholera, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and hepatitis D are present in the country.

    It suffers high levels of corruption. Per capita GDP for 2009 was US$13,000, ranking 85th in the world. About 30% of the population of the country live on less than US $2 per day.

    As the government started to devalue the currency in February 1983 in order to face its financial obligations, Venezuelans' real standard of living fell dramatically. A number of failed economic policies and increasing corruption in government led to rising poverty and crime, worsening social indicators, and increased political instability.Corruption remains a problem; Venezuela was ranked near the bottom of countries in the Corruptions Perceptions Index in 2009.

    Venezuela has been ranked one of the most corrupt countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index since the survey started in 1995. The 2010 ranking placed Venezuela at number 164, out of 178 ranked countries.In 2009, the homicide rate was approximately 57 per 100,000, one of the world’s highest, having trebled in the previous decade (according to The Economist).The capital Caracas has the second greatest homicide rate of any large city in the world, with 92 homicides per 100,000 residents.There have been 118,541 homicides in Venezuela between 1999 and 2010.

    Wow, thinking really must make your head hurt!

  54. Jack1952

    Like it or not the only way to get rid of Saddam and his nutty sons was by the barrel of a gun. They were not leaving any other way. Worse yet, they were loose cannons, threatening the Saudis and to further destabilize the Middle East with the hopes of using it to their own advantage.

    My family is originally from the Netherlands. In 1994-5 Canadian troops entered Holland and with the barrel of a gun chased the oppressive Nazis out. They used it as an opportunity and have been grateful and have taken advantage of it. The trouble with the Iraqis is that they see no problem in an oppressive government as long as its the people they support that are doing the oppressing.

    Who do you think is going to develop their natural resources? The Iraqis have neither the technical skill of the business acumen to get the job done. They need the outsiders to do the job and to train the Iraqis to do it. The Iraqis refuse to take advantage of the resources these companies have to offer and to force those companies to operate in a manner that is in the best interest of both the companies and the Iraqis. They would prefer to do what they have always done...that is to bicker amongst themselves.

    You are right though. The Iraqis have to do it themselves now. They are not going to do it with IEDs, car bombs and shoot-outs with rival factions. either. The fact that that is how it is being handled is the fault of the Iraqis. No one else is to blame.

  55. George

    me too lol , i hope he was trolling

  56. George

    :))) thats probably the only true source

  57. Jack1952

    The first thing that the new Iraqi government should have done is not to nationalize all the oil companies but to form a national oil company. This would be a company consisting of Iraqi citizens and foreign consultants owned by the Iraqi people. When this company becomes a profitable enterprise, it should go public with shares going to every Iraqi citizen to do with whatever they want...keep as an investment, sell on the stock market or buy more shares if possible. Second, legislation should be enacted limiting the amount of foreign unskilled labour in the oil industry. Also, all foreign corporation must have training programs to train Iraqis to work in the oil fields and other business interests. That will help to give Iraqis the jobs and the skills needed to take part in a successful economy. The gulf states are exceptionally prosperous. There is no reason why Iraq could not be just as rich a place as any of these states except for the attitude of the Iraqis themselves.

    One reason foreign companies in Iraq do not want to hire Iraqis is due to the threat of sabotage and vandalism by extremists. It is hard to know when you hire someone whether that person will be a good employee or he is there to try and destroy company belongings to make some kind of political or religious statement.

    Of course the U.S. hated Chavez when he kicked the American corporations out. American citizens lost millions in investments and not only rich investors. Ordinary people with any savings accounts would lose money because it would drive down interest rates. Those who have pension plans would see the value of those plans go down because pensions invest in corporations to make money for those who buy into their plans. These are teachers, nurses, factory workers, ordinary people who work hard for their money. It may even include you. It would be irresponsible of the of the American government to not voice opposition to Chavez's actions. Its called looking after the interests of the people of their country.

  58. Rick Kiriakidis

    I'm going to reply by each of your paragraphs.

    Paragraph 1) I fail to see what the difference between nationalizing the oil (basically creating a state run company) and creating a national oil company. I dont follow you there.

    Paragraph 2) You're basically saying you're damned if you do and you're damned if you dont. Well thats B.S. because if you nationalize the oil then the PEOPLE are the ones losing out on the money if you do any kinds of sabotage, not to say that it wouldn't happen because zealots are zealots, but then at least you get the regular people to cry out against these zealots instead of cheering them on (as they are doing now).

    Paragraph 3) So basically you're saying well if we make money at the detriment of the Venezuelan people, tough for them. Great outlook on things. I'd love to see the reverse happen, how much you'd love a Chinese company come in take all your resources, give you pennies and f*** off back to China.

  59. Rick Kiriakidis

    Wow, your family were INVADED, in this case America was the INVADER.

    You know that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kuwait was angle drilling inside Iraq? And funny how right after the war, those same fields Kuwait was angle drilling in became Kuwaiti oil fields after they redrew the lines.

    Hmmm funny.

  60. Rick Kiriakidis

    You want to talk about corruption? The USA has backed ALOT of corrupt governments out there when it served their purpose, from Saddam to the Shah in Iran to Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan and Iraq TODAY and you want to talk about corruption? Please.

  61. Jack1952

    How do you expect the Iraqis to use the resources that are available to them? The average Iraqi is not going to dig a hole in his backyard, hook up a pump, and get rich. Mao tried this with his foundry in every neighbourhood and it ended in disaster. It takes a large organization with technical and organizational skills to make it a viable operation. It takes the combined efforts of many individuals. This coming together of people in a venture is what we call a company, corporation or business entity. It is the only way it will work. There is no other way. The Iraqi government must then find a way that the efforts of all these companies benefit all Iraqis and not just the select few. It is up to the Iraqi people, through their elections, to make sure the government does this.

    You have hit the nail right on the head when you say saboteurs would only hurt themselves. As a matter of fact, those who are taking part in the bombings and shootings in Iraq right now are hurting every Iraqi and any chance for a better life in that country. At least a nationally owned company may find the support of the people and the average citizen may start to turn on the saboteurs. The same could happen if more Iraqis were working for foreign companies. No one would want to see friends and family members blown up by zealots.

    What I am saying is that it is up to the Venezuelan government to see to it that they are not exploited. Any corporation who does not follow guidelines and invest in Venezuelan infrastructure should be forced to leave. Obey the laws of the land that they are operating in. Nationalizing the assets of those companies is different than stealing the resources of a country. The Chinese and Americans are in Canada, where I live, and they must follow the rules our governments have imposed on them. The Americans have whined and complained about our well head tax in the past, but, too bad. If they want our oil, it is what they are going to have to do and guess what. Canada is the largest oil supplier to the United States. So it is possible. This has been to the benefit of Canadians all across Canada. China has invested heavily in the Alberta tar sands and they are not giving us pennies for their efforts. Our government has guaranteed that the entire country will benefit by what the Chinese are doing. If we can do it here, it can be done anywhere..

  62. Rick Kiriakidis

    What are you talking about? The Iraqi's were exporting oil BEFORE the war, and Iraqi's WE'RE doing it! The oil industry in Iraq didnt start AFTER the americans invaded Iraq!

    You're comparing a country who has a partnership with America to a country that has been invaded and bombed? Your views are so skewed I dont even know where to start. You really think the Iraqis still think of Americans as liberators and helpful? That foreign companies aren't there to screw them over? Maybe if Canada had been bombed by the US, and one of your brothers/sisters/children killed you'd be a little upset about it.

    I said it was good thing to get rid of Saddam, but they stayed there for 8 years after he was gone and nothing changed, its WORSE than when Saddam was in charge.

    How did Libya get rid of Ghaddafi? They did it themselves. Which is what Iraq had to do, no invasion is EVER successful even if you're there to help. IT DOESNT WORK. Remember Vietnam? And now Afghanistan you think its working there too? Come on man.

  63. Jack1952

    You've never heard of World War Two? Holland was invaded by Nazi Germany and my family had German soldiers in their homes confiscating food and anything made of metal they thought they could use in their war effort. The allies entered Holland and liberated them from an oppressive regime and they took full advantage of it. The Iraqis could do the same if they only had the will to do it.

    Almost every country on the planet condemned the invasion of Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was afraid that they would be next. If Iraq had problems with how the Kuwaitis were operating they had other options than the invasion and occupation of another country. This angle drilling was only one complaint that Saddam had. He also said that Kuwait belonged to Iraq and that he had every right to reclaim the land that rightfully belonged to the Iraqi people. If this drilling was the only problem, why did he allow his soldiers to enter the homes of the Kuwaiti people and steal whatever they wanted. The road back to Iraq was littered with stolen merchandise discarded by fleeing soldiers. You are defending the actions of a tyrant, who brutalized his own people and earned the moniker "the butcher of Baghdad" honestly.

  64. Rick Kiriakidis

    OMG, again with world war 2, YOUR COUNTRY WAS INVADED BY THE NAZIS! THEY WERE LIBERATED FROM INVADERS! The people of Holland we'rent fighting the Canadians/Brits/Ameericans!!! They we're ALLIES. The Iraqi's were FIGHTING the AMERICANS.

    I wasn't defending Saddam at all, I was just pointing that out. I will never defend ANY violence or aggression. I was just saying its funny how lines were redrew after the war that put those "supposed angle drilling fields" in Kuwait territory. I dont know how many times I have to repeat getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, Ive said it like 10 times now, but INVADING a country is never successful, especially if its not backed by the U.N. and other countries, and even so we see the results of that in Afghanistan.

    Anyway, I think we're rehashing the same things over and over, so I'll just leave this discussion now. Violence is never an answer. Ghandi knew what he was talking about.

  65. Jack1952

    You may not believe this but I opposed the invasion of Iraq...but it happened and there is nothing to be done about it. The war is over now. It is time for the Iraqi people to rebuild their country. If foreigners are exploiting their resources, then ask them to stop or leave. The foreigners must become partners or nothing. Hating Americans, even if deserved, will get them nowhere. They must look after themselves and quit complaining about a past that can't be changed.

    The Japanese did quite nicely after surrendering to the allies in WW2 so it can happen and the bombing of Japan makes what happened in Iraq look like a picnic. Germany was absolutely devastated after the war but the western occupied West Germany also recovered quite nicely. It will not happen overnight and it will never happen as long as the Iraqis keep fighting amongst each other. If someone offers help, accept it, as long as they're not doing it for selfish reasons. Accepting help is not a weakness.

  66. Jack1952

    Many Iraqis were glad to see the Americans come in and rid them of Saddam. Of course the Baath party supporters didn't like it but that what was to be expected. The Americans never intended to stay but they did because of the sectarian violence so they stayed hoping to stabilize the country a little but they are gone now. No more American troops in Iraq. Invasions may not be successful but the invasion is over. Yet the violence goes on. Just who are they fighting? If violence is not the answer where the Americans are concerned it must also be the same for those Iraqi insurgents who are fighting each other. That is what I believe is the fault of the Iraqi people and government. That is what only the Iraqi people can fix.

    We agree that Saddam had to go and we both do not like how it was done. We diverge on one issue. You seem to hate the Americans and will not let go of the past wrong doings. I say the past is done and over. Work towards a better future for Iraq. It may be the American's fault that the violence started but it is the Iraqis fault that it continues.

    One thing...had the allies stayed in Holland for an indeterminate amount of time, eventually the Dutch would have complained and revolted. It didn't happen because the foreign troops did eventually leave. Foreign troops have also left Iraq. Its time to stop complaining about it and get on with it.

  67. Rick Kiriakidis

    I dont hate America or Americans, I have many American friends, I regularly go to the USA, Ive had American girlfriends. Americans are kind, friendly people (for the most part). I dont hate American troops either, I have friends who went to Iraq and Afghanistan, they do what they are told, they follow orders, its what soldiers do.

    I hate American foreign policy as well as Canadian foreign policy, especially since Harper has taken over. I also hate corporations who only care about profits.

    You're right, they are gone. And now you're saying its time for them to move on, well duh. What else can they do? Why dont I come over to your house and demolish it and then tell you hey, what ya gonna do, just forget about it and rebuild buddy. Oh by the way, here's 50 cents for you every month, maybe you can rebuild it out of cardboard. Smell ya later.

  68. Jack1952

    I don't like Harper either and he will not be re-elected if I can help it. As for corporations and profit, that is what they do. No profit...bankruptcy and no corporation. All the good intentions in the world are meaningless if your corporation goes bankrupt. It is up to the government and the people who elect them to give these corporations a playing field in which profits are possible and to see to it that the country where they operate in benefit from their presence. It has to be fair for all...the people, the government and the corporation.

    You demolish my house, I won't like all. If I have legal recourse I will pursue it. If that becomes an impossible strategy, I start from scratch and rebuild. Incessant complaining will not rebuild, only my own hard work and effort. I won't totally forget about it. I'll remember enough to stay away from you and advise anyone who asks that you are not to be trusted. I won't expect any help from you either. If offered I may accept but I will be quite wary of it. It is the only hope I have for the future. It is all I can do. Fair has nothing to do with it.

  69. Srandallc

    you don't complain about the past that "cannot be changed" because you're trying to change the past. you complain about it to change the future, because if you don't, it's just gonna keep being the same old ****.

  70. batvette

    "The people of Holland we'rent fighting the Canadians/Brits/Ameericans!!! They we're ALLIES. The Iraqi's were FIGHTING the AMERICANS."

    But now the Americans are gone and the Iraqis are still fighting each other, making the theory that they were only fighting us, false.

    " but INVADING a country is never successful, especially if its not backed by the U.N. and other countries, "

    You do realize the reason France, Russia and China all stubbornly opposed action against Saddam is because they were about to consummate exclusive oil exploration contracts with him-and this is why sanctions were becoming a joke, because they were helping him get around them?

  71. Crewe420

    say what you want about saddam , but you seem to irrogant to register in your brain that saddam kept some kind of ballance with shia and sunni factions , now sunni life in iraq is nothing but hell .

  72. batvette

    "to irrogant"? I left my "gibberish to english translator" at home, but perhaps you've created a useful word, morphing arrogant with ignorant?
    Whatever it is you meant, I don't think anyone is oblivious to what Saddam was presiding over, our main consideration was his continued desire for regional conquest, attacking his neighbors.
    We'd contained him as long as we could and it was falling apart. He was talking advantage of post 9/11 sentiments in the region to leverage our interests away from us and strengthen the influence of his own allies who were about to resupply his military as soon as sanctions ended. We had longstanding agreements to defend the Saudis and Kuwaitis and it would have been negligent of us to just allow the inevitable to happen again.

  73. Conscious Mind

    "He was talking advantage" says the guy who tries & ridiculing a fellow commentator for a single misspelled word. Arrogant much?

  74. Slindsay54

    Wake up, it was George Bush senior that told Saddam that the Kuwaities where stealing Iraqi oil by horizontal drilling and showed him false blueprints to prove it.They then said to Saddam they would look the other way if Sddam attacked Kuwait, so they did.This was all set up by Israel so that it would destablize the Middle East and the begining of regional proxies of the other muslim nations as well as making Israel the dominate force in the region.The British played an important role only because there North Sea oil was on the decline and had no significent oil lease around the world that would continue to supply them for the next fifty years. The US well they need the oil plus they want military dominance in the region.

  75. Thomas Stenhouse

    Good to see that Im not the only one getting it

  76. Thomas Stenhouse

    So what do you think of the documentary?;)

  77. batvette

    If you have something topical to add to the discussion rather than pointing out an obvious typo to start personal attacks, please don't hold back. Note the TWO misspelled words were also part of a personal attack, not that I think you'd disapprove.

  78. batvette

    "They then said to Saddam they would look the other way if Sddam attacked Kuwait, so they did."

    I believe the rhetoric used amounted to "you're going to do what you're going to do", I don't see that as a reprehensible position or encouraging it. What did you expect us to say, "If you invade another country we will do everything possible to protect you using our position in the UN security council"? Oh wait that's what Russia and France have been doing.

    " making Israel the dominate force in the region."

    It's not clear how this has happened since wars between Iraq and Iran, and Iraq and Kuwait and KSA, all Muslim nations, have only served to increase military spending by all those nations. While Iraq's military has ultimately been decimated, Iran and KSA have been augmented.
    You seem to be ignoring Saddam's fomenting of tensions by rewarding suicide bombers with bounties for attacks in Jerusalem as well.

    "The US well they need the oil plus they want military dominance in the region."

    True enough but so what? Military dominance = Peace.

  79. carkrueger

    Anti-American propaganda. What a biased, worthless waste of energy. When the former Gitmo prisoner said American soldiers raped young boys in front of him, I had to remind myself this was an AlJezera production. This piece was an outrage and a disgrace. It offered no solace to the thousands of American lives lost In Iraq.

  80. carkrueger

    That's like saying, I have a black friend, can I be racist. You know what my friend, no one in America cares what you think.

  81. Bobby2013

    Aww, boohoo. My heart aches for the poor american lives. Americans take take take. Take what doesn't belong to them. What do you expect from a nation of halfwits who's sole past time is consumption. The USA has never had a no war time period since its founding. The USA ***** everyone else to get ahead themselves. They dont know the meaning of the word peace. So why the hell should anyone weep. Weep for the invaders, what a joke.

  82. carkrueger

    Unfortunately for you Americans don't care what you think.

  83. Ruairi McGuigan

    Unfortunately for the rest of exist...

  84. Ruairi McGuigan

    Imperialist less

  85. Ruairi McGuigan

    Are you for real...!? Just shut up....

  86. Jack1952

    A lot of accusations. Now prove it. Show us where you got this information. Don't tell us that it makes sense. Prove it with facts.

  87. Jack1952

    I suggest that the Iraqi people stop fighting each other and try to build a better place for all of them to live and you tell me to shut up. I can't imagine what your solution would be. Your angry rhetoric indicates more violence, more misery and more death. Any type of conciliation is out of the question. Lets fight and fight till there's nothing left. That should show those imperialistic Americans.

    You are not one to get involved in any type of intelligent or mature discussion are you? Curse, insult and bully are your tools of dialogue. A true Renaissance Man.

  88. Rick Kiriakidis

    You my friend are the epitome of stupidity. Fortunately for me, most Americans DO care what I have to say. At least, the one's with an ounce of intellect. That rules YOU out.

  89. rufusclyde

    Crazy ol' scatvette! The US has been the undisputed military power in the world since '91, and there is war in dozens of countries . US troops are directly involved in many of the hotspots, and where they are not, Imperial proxies are doing the looting and shooting. Spin, spin, spin!
    "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

    Well, that almost reads like, "you're going to do what you're going to do"'.

    "Not associated with America, until we decide to send half a million troops, tanks and the might of the Imperial air and sea arms."

  90. cortex4484

    aljazeera documentaries.. as usual, entirely politically motivated, however disguised behind the lies of politicians and the ignorance of few of the public

  91. disqus_0qRcR2XYov

    history will tell of american abuse around the world.

  92. Guest

    I think they left out Sky & Fox news for bringing the truth to the public!

  93. John Louis

    You tell me how the Iraqi can take such a lead when there are still 150000 US soldieers and professional contract killers (mercenaries) armed to the teeths surronding them. You seem to have answers to all the calamities these Iraqian have to live through. You should apply as a US emissary for pete's sake.

  94. Atwas911

    As an American.. I care what people from other countries think of me, my government, and our actions around the world.

    He is 100% correct. America is a rotting festering corpse of what she once stood for. Our system of Government is infiltrated by criminal forces. America is an occupied nation.

    I just hope the rest of the world is able to understand that it's not the american people committing these horrors around the globe. That the majority have no idea what is really going on, and are asleep dreaming about what the american dream once was rather than see the abomination it has become.

  95. Eric Lawson

    We all new here that the major motivator for this intrusion was for OIL!!!!This just another Sad cometary of big corporations powers. Yes Saddam is gone. This is the result hungry and all powerful corporations like BP OIL!!The Poor Iraqis when will they be truly free?

    A side note the religious powers will control these poor people forever !

Leave a comment / review: