What are you talking about? Everyone knows that Iraq is a flourishing Jeffersonian democracy!
Posted by andgarden at December 5, 2007 10:47 AMVery interesting post.
I wouldn't give the Chaldean and Assyrian Christians much chance of surviving Bushism. They are a doomed people.
Interesting how Bush's "Holy Father" never seems to bring up issues like this during his frequent conversations with pious George. You'd think it would be on his mind.
Posted by euzoius at December 5, 2007 11:47 AMThe NYT tells only part of the story correctly once again.
A lot of the Assyrian and Chaldean Christians in Iraq are descendants of Christian refugees from Turkey during WWI and its bloody founding, as well as refugees from the Hashemites in the Levant who didn't want the Christians cooperating overly much with the Brits, which is complex as the Hashemites cooperated with the Brits. Anyway, the Armenians and the Kurds weren't the only victims of being driven out of the old Ottoman Empire, so were many of the Iraqi Christians who didn't live in what would become Iraq prior to WWI but were driven there. Some were there prior to WWI, but not as many as after WWI.
It also sounds like the NYT is trying to classify it into two easy to remember groups of Christian, the Assyrians, meaning an Eastern Orthodox, and the Chaldeans, meaning a Catholic sect. But, the lines aren't that simple. There's Syriac Catholics in Iraq, who have a liturgy based on the Antiochene liturgy, a sort of Eastern Rite, but they are Catholic. Then there's the Chaldeans, who have their own liturgy, but they're Catholics, too. There's also Armenian Catholics, too. By the way, the Chaldeans would tell you they speak Chaldean, not Aramaic. It's descended from or a dialect of Aramaic, but it's not really Aramaic.
The Eastern Orthodox side of it is just as complex.
Also, while Bush has certainly made it much, much worse, these Christian populations have been under Islamic pressure, a polite term for slaughter and bigotry, for centuries.
Posted by Brian Bell at December 5, 2007 12:08 PMAnd yet they just in the past month replaced the cross at the St. John's Church in Baghdad, taken down when the place turned dangerous. As Rep. Murtha said, it's working.
Posted by peter at December 5, 2007 12:16 PMWhat? The Bushies and godbots don't care about dead xtians or history? Shocking!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 5, 2007 12:28 PMpeter- i'm sure the replacement of the cross is very meaningful to those who have been killed, or who have fled. and regarding murtha, your talking point is uninformed: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/11/30/murtha_richardson/print.html
everyone else- thanks!
Posted by Turkana at December 5, 2007 12:35 PMI believe it was 60 Minutes or Nightline that did a story just last week on this. The threats to Christians are real, jetting many out of Iraq for fear of being killed.
George Walker Bush, spreading Democracy and Christianity. Barf!
Posted by Judith at December 5, 2007 12:54 PMwe will know when there is real, actual progress in Iraq when U.S. government officials don't have to go there in secret. When the WaPo has a story saying president Bush and Sec Rice will travel to Baghdad next wednesday, arriving at Baghdad Intl around noon, Baghdad time. And they do. Then talk to me about progress.
Posted by T2 at December 5, 2007 01:22 PM"we will know when there is real, actual progress in Iraq when U.S. government officials don't have to go there in secret."
Depends on what you call progress. The day the emperor and his minions can travel freely and opening to Baghdad will be the day the empire has completely subjugated Iraq and its people. If total subjugation to the empire is progress to you, then yes, that would be a sign of progress.
My take on what constitutes progress is somewhat different.
Posted by Shirin at December 5, 2007 01:36 PMReal progress would be us not invading and occupying other countries to steal their resources because we're too lazy and greedy to find alternative energy resources.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 5, 2007 01:52 PMTurkana, peter doesn't want to admit that Murtha quickly clarified his remarks. Even if he's pointed out an article or link.
Murtha Clarifies Surge Remarks.
Following a headline-grabbing uproar, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, moved swiftly Friday to clarify earlier remarks that seemed to suggest the Iraq surge policy was working.The surge, he said in a statement, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,’’ but so far the Iraqi government has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”
“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” said the chair of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee.
Posted by Seven of Six at December 5, 2007 02:02 PM
I am calling on Father Christmas(Billo) to send a Fox security brigade to Iraq and correct this terrible situation post haste.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 5, 2007 04:10 PMTurkana, peter doesn't want to admit that Murtha quickly clarified his remarks. Even if he's pointed out an article or link.
Shortly after he received a brief phone call, Mr Murtha "clarified" his statement.
This is a really horrible story, that's why not many Americans know about it. I only found out about it approximately a week ago, but I had known the horror of Iraq's refugees for a long time.
They are ignored, and even kept out of the country, after wrecking the place we won't even let them come here! It would look bad, you see.
I think this is by far the worst thing Bush will ever do. Climate change is silent and unseen, but these are real humans, real children, a real heritage of western values. Sometimes I feel like slapping myself when I think about it, it's hard to believe Americans did this some days, Jesus part of my money did it! Why can't we see what we've done?
Posted by paradox at December 5, 2007 06:50 PM"after wrecking the place we won't even let them come here!"
The USA certainly does owe the refugees a great deal - like reparations, compensation, and punitive damages! However, in no way do I support the idea of resettling the refugees, and most particularly I do not support resettling them in the United States. They should be supported in exile by the United States until they can safely return.
"these are real humans, real children, a real heritage of western values."
How did these people whose ancestry in the land of Iraq goes back in some cases thousands of years, whose entire background and history for thousands of years is Middle Eastern, whose primary culture is Arab - indeed, many of the Christians in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world ARE ethnically and ancestrally Arabs - who speak Arabic as their shared language, and whose ancestral/familial language is, in many cases, some variant or other on the ancient language of Aramaic, manage to acquire a heritage of "western values" (whatever those really are)?
I ask you this gently, because I understand and appreciate the excellent intentions and wonderful sentiments behind your comments, but have you really thought about what sense of superiority and what prejudices underlie and gave rise to that particular remark? Have you thought about how it demeans everyone who does NOT have a "heritage of western values"? And is that OK with you?
Posted by Shirin at December 6, 2007 10:30 AM"And yet they just in the past month replaced the cross at the St. John's Church in Baghdad, taken down when the place turned dangerous. As Rep. Murtha said, it's working."
god you're fucking stoopid, why don't you go visit St. John's Church in Baghdad so you can prove to us how the Surge is working
Posted by Gay Veteran at December 6, 2007 12:08 PM