Comments on: Saad Eskander on Iraq’s Future

By: Rebecca Jakob

Rebecca Jakob — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:05:58 +0000

As a Master of Arts candidate interested in issues of national identity, I was fascinated to hear Mr. Eskander speak about the significance of Iraqi archives to the building and maintenance of cultural heritage.

The current situation, with the US holding caseloads of Iraqi archives against the wishes of the Iraqi Government and, I suspect, the Iraqi people, further highlights the weight and symbolism attributed to national documents.

I found myself asking what Mr. Eskander was referring to when he stated that the US was violating international agreements. Something to look into before my presentation on this topic next week.

Gratefully,
Rebecca

By: Brett

Brett — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:59:35 +0000

Rachel,
For you to express the belief that the show indicates Bush will be vindicated; and, by extension, the comments reflect ‘Bush haters get[ting] antsy’ is either disingenuous or delusional.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:37 +0000

See what I mean?

By: MIchael

MIchael — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:11:46 +0000

sorry, correction it’s production sharing agreement

By: marlene pollock

marlene pollock — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:06:05 +0000

While Tom and his guest are trying to figure out why the U.S. took and still has the Iraqi archives, did they ever think of the idea that there might be something incriminating about the U.S. support of Saddam Hussein? Might this be the reason that they won’t restore these records? After all, the U.S. threw its full support behind Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. Is there something the U.S. doesn’t want the Iraqis to see? signed Marianne

By: MIchael

MIchael — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:56:42 +0000

Right on to the Caller Alice and then caller after her. There has been over 2million Iraqi’s displaced in iraq and over 3million outside, i believe the number of iraqi’s killed is around 300k plus.

I don’t quite understand the logic put forth that the iraqi’s see us as hero’s liberators after what we have done. We invaded iraq under the guise of WMD, and stayed under the guise of Spreading democracy, and wanted to stay indifferently if the Bush Admin and our Generals had their way. As Alice noted it’s the corporations that control and run the U.S. not the people. Also to note the countries that helped the U.S. invade got first dips on oil agreements with the iraqi’s backed government

Listed below is the leader of the oil trade union. He talks about the first thing the U.S. did when there got they. It talks about how the U.S. destroy schools, infrastructure, hospitals, His name is Hassan Jumma President of Iraqi Federation of Oil Union.

Also it talks about (PSA) Partnership Sharing Agreement (which btw was illegal in iraq and most if not all heavy oil producing counties).

How about on-point has someone that’s not a u.s. pawn on to get a full view on things.

This is translated and i recommend anyone that wish to learn more listen to this below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcZx9S-TJn4

By: Cory

Cory — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:23 +0000

Todd,

You are a mad and diverse fellow. I love it! I agree with your comment (today).

By: Dana Franchitto

Dana Franchitto — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:30:39 +0000

Rachel , we anti-war people get “antsy’ not because Bush may be vindicated. But because the anti-war voices are seldom if ever heard on “public” radio. I didn’t hear the whole show what I heard sounded like defacto propaganda for a war that was based on a system oof lies perpetrated by the Bush administration. That has never recieved sufficient scrutiny to my knowledge.Finally, why is it an article fo faith in the media that Bush invaded Iraq to establish democracy there? Especially since his lies about WMDs and Saddam’s colaboration with al Qeada have long been discredited.

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:57:08 +0000

‘Anti-war people, despite their good intentions, sometimes have a lack of knowledge about these complexities…’ -Joanna Drzenwieniecki

One could deduce, aside from your statement being way too much of a broad brush, that you are pro-war, that you think pre-emptively invading other countries is a good idea, that for one country to assert and insinuate itself into the workings of another country is a good idea, etc. I wonder how you’d feel if Scandinavian countries decided the US’s policies on the basic human rights of its citizens were unjust and then attacked us?

I will admit that we helped create a mess in Iraq and should help to clean up that mess. Thinking militarily is not the only solution to problems, however.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:48:28 +0000

I love the way Bush haters get antsy when it looks as if he might be vindicated.

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:19:36 +0000

The caller named Alice nailed it. America has no business defining what’s best for other countries.

By: Joanna Drzewieniecki

Joanna Drzewieniecki — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:07 +0000

Thanks, Mr. Eskander for the work that you are doing. I hope that the US will return those archives soon and I intend to write to my political representatives about this issue.
You understand, I hope, that many Americans have a hard time understanding the complexity of the situation in Iraq. Anti-war people, despite their good intentions, sometimes have a lack of knowledge about these complexities, the effects of the years of dictatorship and many other things that people probably can only learn by living in countries in the Third World.
Good luck to you,

By: Mark Zamcheck

Mark Zamcheck — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:43:45 +0000

Mr. Eskander is a wonderful voice to hear! Our country needs to pay close attention to what this man has to say as we progress in Irag – perhaps the Middle East at large.

By: Jean Smith

Jean Smith — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:37:17 +0000

What aircraft has the Iraqi Air Force gone with to support air combat, ground combat support and tactical bombing roles?