[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Iraq .. The country of sad irrigations
18 August 2019
The painful paradox of the Iraqi scene is that the regimes that exercise their dominance over the quota system have unanimously agreed to despise the Iraqi people. I do not say the Iraqi political system, the latter is difficult to put in the dictionary of national literature; it is a system based on the support of the imperialist regime on the one hand and neighboring regimes on the other. So it remains for the people, since it is the origin and the systems are gone. In this sense, why all this contempt for the Iraqi people?
Regimes that exercise their dominance over the quota system have unanimously despised the Iraqi people
For example, the United States treats Iran as an ancient and integrated nation. Kissinger once stated that "Iran must either be a nation or an issue", referring to its civilizational depth, and not to go too far in favor of its political insurgency. Regardless of Kissinger's right or not, the story lies here: they see Iran as a nation of international significance.
Another paradox: even the neighboring countries of Iraq, whether we are associated with a historical neighborhood and bonds of civilization and religious, has remained its view of the Iraqi people is not much different from the view of the cold international policy towards this angered people. Moreover: its involvement in supporting the corrupt and encouraging them to establish a state within a state.
All this is happening in front of the view inside and outside, and it has become something ordinary and familiar, and even spontaneous!; With a bit of reassurance for his position which is a matter of life and death.
I do not envy the United States on its institutions and its tremendous economic, political and cultural strength, because it is a global achievement, that is, a global empire with many factors of strength, but envy Iran on many things, and of course I do not envy the regime of the clergy, but envy it to its loyal men perish such as Qasim Soleimani and his ilk, who work for Iran only contrary to what they are saying that they work for Islam and the nation and Shiism. They are faithful to the point of annihilation, ready to sacrifice themselves for their national borders first and foremost, and their doctrinal doctrine that produced a generation of "guerrillas" who are a human wall to repel any potential "conspiracy" from the outside.
Whatever the nature of our views on this system, and whatever we are against the blatant interference of this system in our internal affairs and its view, in which there is no parity and real competition, towards us, this is a national principle that we adhere to and we do not thank. But Hasdi proceeds from this particular angle: Why are there in Iraq exactly the opposite of Soleimani ?! I mean, how many corrupt politicians are praising the neighbors and harboring a strong hatred for this country while living off its good deeds?
To be more frank: I feel very unpleasant as I see very confident and loyal personalities of her country that control the political decision in Iraq.In contrast, I see Iraqi personalities awaiting orders from abroad even if Iraq burns, it does not concern them as long as the green light does not come from outside.
There are Iraqi figures waiting for orders from abroad even if Iraq burns, it does not concern them as long as the green light does not come from outside
Another pattern differs from the aspirations of corrupt politicians; they are the pioneers of 'freedom' who work the impossible and struggle to attain their individual liberty and autonomy and deplete much of their mental energy to demonstrate the sacredness of individual liberty, as this struggle towards the independence of the country cools, melts and evaporates. Of course, I am not talking about the simple people who are aware of the absence of the state.
This type of people is willing to burn the country in exchange for its cheap privileges and 'sacred freedom', encourages any foreign occupation and immediately joins the latter !, it serves its services to the occupier wholeheartedly, and does not concern him with major issues, but rather his individual freedom, and advises us very much to pay attention to our future. Whatever he thinks and complains about is merely a reflection of his social status and his own well-being.
How can the country be built in the midst of political elites and some cultural elites, who can think of anything but the country's interest? How do others think positively about this country and all these corrupt beings? Have we ever heard that dignity, freedom, independence and national identity come from abroad?