Furupuru's avatar

Furupuru

Honor and duty
4 Watchers37 Deviations
6K
Pageviews

woah...

2 min read
There's this huge river going straight throgh me. I don't know how else to describe it...it's like it was alwas there, washing me out, bringing me new things, new emotions, bt never before did i realize just how huge this thing really was...

here in town there's this river, and just about every late spring to early summer it floods like nobody's business, just a righteous overflow of new, pure water.  It seems like that's what's going through me. Except the river in town is always turbulent on the surface, it splashes and crashes its way down through its little channels, knocking over trees in its remembered boundless freedom. The trees always remind me of people who have fallen over from being tickled too hard. They hardly ever die, but they do look kind of desperate.

This river through me is placid on the surface, completely smooth and seamless, like glass...but the currents carrying it along are rapid powerful. Its the kind of water that you find in a pond, so you walk up to it and kindof stick your hand in, thinking that you'll just swish it around alittle and enjoy how cool it is. How liquid.  But i walked up to it and stuck my hand in and was absolutely stunned by its strength and force. There was immediately this huge splash around my wrist, like the water was grabbing me.

it is grabbing me.

I am falling into this river.
this wind.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In

Times are Tough

9 min read
     Anyone who was alive and thinking at the time clearly remembers the sixties. That decade was one of the truly great examples of the exercising of power by the American people in the twentieth century. For perhaps the first time, the American people, especially those young people coming of age at that time, were truly questioning themselves and their government in reasonable and relatively enlightened terms. They noticed discrepancies of all kinds, especially discrepancies between promises made and promises kept, and they began to demand the fulfillment of those promises. Now, however, I wonder if anyone of my generation will clearly remember the first decade of the twenty first century as being anything but just that: the start of a new millennium, the start of a new war.  
      The class of 1966 chose to face down many major issues sweeping the United States at the time.  Perhaps the biggest issue then was the civil rights movement.  The first major Civil Rights Act had been passed in 1964.  Its passage and all that was taking place during those days rocked the nation down to the very smallest unit of government: the family.  Upon entering into the first stages of adulthood at the time, the graduating class of 1966 immediately faced a moral dilemma.  They had to choose:  Either they accepted the US treatment of black people as the natural process of selection or they renounced it as oppression and hypocrisy against the Constitution. In those days, many times the parents did not agree, and so children had to choose for themselves. More often than not, the sixties' generation chose in favor of what they believed was true democracy.
     In fact, at times members of that generation were very militant in their insistence for change.  The Black Panther Party was established in 1966; it was the "sole black organization in the entire history of the black struggle against slavery and oppression in the US that was armed and promoted a revolutionary agenda." So controversial were the Black Panther Party's methods, that CIA chief J. Edgar Hoover named them the biggest internal threat to the United States.  Created following the assassination of black public representative Malcolm X, and at the zenith of the civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Black Panther Party was the angry voice of the oppressed black population that shook civilian white and black families to the bone.  Many children of the sixties, while not fully condoning the violent message of the Black Panthers, were in agreement with the freedom they demanded.
    Also forcibly shaking the family unit was the draft. In 1966, mass protests against the draft often came to a violent head. Several major incidents resulted in police brutality and even the use of tear gas to break up the rallies. Families were torn apart by their young ones being forced to fight in the war, or by the same token, by their young ones refusal to go. "Old enough to fight, old enough to die" was a frequent saying amongst young protesters.
     There are no great revolutions awaiting the class of 2006, though not for lack of major issues.  Even though the children of my generation are faced with the serious possibility of devastating global warming, the certainty of a lack of oil in just a few years, the controversy over Israel and Palestine's continued war, the US-led coalition's veritable invasion and occupation of Iraq—and therefore the questionable authenticity of US leaders—not to mention the thousands of major issues all over the world having nothing to do with the US, they seemingly would rather go along with the game than look to the future.
     Where many of the young minds of 1966 were focusing in on the civil rights movement, the draft, and the exploration of enlightenment, the young minds of 2006 are focusing in more on video games, computer and music technology, and new drugs. Granted, many hippies eventually lost their search for their highest human self in sex and drugs, but at least they were searching for something.  At least they were asking questions. The children of today who are lost in sex and drugs are lost because they want to be lost.  Perhaps the biggest motivation behind today's video games, television, drugs, and promiscuity is the need for escape. When asked about this, the teens of today often admit that they are aware of at least a few of the events covered by US media, yet they admit also that they do not care, that it is not their problem, or that the problem is too big to try to solve.
       Before escapism cast its pall over the children of my generation, it poisoned the minds that spawned us.  It seems as though sometime in the late 1970's or early 1980's, after the terrible incidents in Vietnam and at home, the American people finally felt appeased. Finally, after years of struggle, we were rich, we were fair, we were right.  Those who had previously held vicious, questioning opinions about the government no longer harbored those views; they allowed themselves to become soft. Their protests had been so great that the US government conceded to many of their demands. Yet once those problems had been solved, the overwhelming majority of the sixties' generation did not feel compelled to turn to other real problems, both at home and the world.  Instead, they gave themselves over to the suburbs, to cheap gas, high-quality consumables, and to good jobs.  Suddenly the failings of the US government faded from their sight, and the hungry acquisition of material goods seemed paramount.
       The vast majority of these people turned, satisfied, from major issues, retiring their minds from reform completely, and they taught their children to do the same. From our earliest years, the majority of us have been immersed in consumerism and candy; technology captivates us.  As a group, we are not taught how to think for ourselves, but rather what to think.  Somehow, between 1966 and 2006 the awareness level of the youngest and brightest minds has been turned from how to improve humanity to how to improve just one life: your own.
      The class of 2006 today faces a frightening world.  Not only do several countries have access to or are manufacturing nuclear warfare technology and worse, many of those countries are threatening to use it. The US has publicly declared war against intangible enemies such as drugs and terror, while also more tangibly declaring war against Iraq and rattling our sabers towards Iran. Meanwhile, scientists predict that if we continue to produce CFCs at the rate we are currently producing them, we have less than twenty years before we experience a very potent greenhouse effect.  The world population continues to explode, and it is expected that "more than 840 million people on earth suffer from hunger."3 We have less than fifty years supply of oil, and very few reliable alternative energy sources. Major corporations, such as Wal-Mart, have publicly made trade agreements with foreign countries where a percentage of their total revenue is given in exchange for cheap slave labor. We happily buy the cheap goods made from that slave labor while we self-righteously renounce and wage war on a nation that we have now come to realize actually posed no real threat to our national welfare. It is common knowledge in my generation that money is the most powerful force in our nation today.
      Even though all of this information can be discovered at just the push of a few buttons, we are fed such doublespeak about our role in today's society that many of my generation would rather have nothing to do with any of it.  We have turned inward, and most of us have given up any hope that we can make a difference in the world, even if we were to stand up to its falsehoods.
        So many people denounce my generation for this behavior. Out of the box thinking is almost completely discouraged in our schools. We are placed on medication at the first sign of any abnormal tendencies, and then are blamed for using drugs. Scare tactics instead of real, honest information and discussion used as preventatives to pre-marital sex and drug use have had the result of frightening the naïve among us into tremulous fear of anything outside the box and tempting the informed but jaded into doing those things very things out of spite. We are fed propaganda about the many wars we wage, about popularity, about sex, about drugs. As a generation, we are so wounded by the pressure to succeed within in the box and by the duplicity of those older than we are that many of us refuse to listen to anyone in authoritative positions at all. As a result, we have no one to look up to, no one to guide us, no one to teach us the truth.  Horrifyingly, however, we are no less young-minded, arrogant, and in need of guidance than the generations that have come before us, so at this rate we will not have the self-disciplined minds necessary to shape the world we are graduating into, rather than just conforming into it.
       The graduating class of 1966 was a class that openly embraced and fought for change. As a group, they plowed ahead despite many preconceptions and mass naiveté, braved war at home and abroad to gain what they believed meant freedom. However, once these changes occurred, they fell victim to the great, modern American failing of instant gratification.  They largely failed to look or care beyond their immediate needs.
In contrast, we, the graduating class of 2006, though more factually educated than the class of 1966 with the Internet at our fingertips, are so constantly harangued and pressured by 'the right way to be', as well as by the horrifying realities of the world that we are inheriting,  would rather forget that we are here at all. Therefore, my generation has largely forgotten the rest of the world as we turn inward, only experiencing it in the ways that it concerns us directly.
       As I graduate this year, I am afraid of what lies ahead for the world, for America.  However, thanks in no small part to some brilliant and unusual teachers, I pledge myself to not turn inward.  I pledge myself not to be lost to consumerism.  I pledge myself to doing my part, and to contributing to the health of my family, my community, and to my world.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In

America in Iraq?

11 min read
      Since the time the United States cemented itself into a nation, it has claimed to be the shining paragon of justice and equality.  For maybe a century, this lovely, idealistic claim might actually have been true.  At some point after the end of the nineteenth century, however, the bright colors of American justice and equality began to fade.  For over a hundred years, the US government has allowed itself to be controlled not so much by the people it represents, but mainly by the large corporations who paid them.  In other words, the rich often decided who made the choices in office.  Today it is well known that many politicians can be 'bought', and after the Watergate scandal and much CIA information de-classified by President Clinton, many people believe that dishonesty in politics and politicians is something to take for granted.  In spite of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we still behave as though we are fit to call ourselves just.  In the last fifty years alone, we have taken the affairs of other countries into our own hands—often at no public request for aid or succor on their part—in fact, more than any other nation, all the while using these forays to portray ourselves as the arbiters of peace and democracy.  Sometimes we accomplish our goal, as in South Korea. However, sometimes we make matters much, much worse than their previous state. Take for instance our involvement in the Vietnam War.  Americans asked themselves then, as they often do not now ask concerning the war in Iraq: What is our real goal? Why did America become involved in the war?  Is America really capable not only of eliminating the corruptive forces in the area, but also transitioning the people into an effective form of representative government?  In Viet Nam, we prolonged a very devastating, costly war, and when we abandoned that effort, the Vietnamese were left to settle their issues just as though we had never intervened.  It seems to me that a similar tragedy is occurring in Iraq.
Before America ever declared war on Iraq, we sent our troops to Afghanistan soon after the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  President Bush had taken decisive action in retaliation. He went through all the motions needed to satisfy the angry and hurt American people as he acted to capture the man suspected of responsibility for the horrifying attack: Osama Bin Laden, leader of the guerrilla force known as the Taliban.  We bombed the caves in the Afghani mountains, but after a period of only a few months, gave up our search in Afghanistan, although the Taliban was believed to be hidden there still.
       Soon,  President Bush began shouting loudly and brandishing our big stick, decrying Sadaam Hussein as an evil despot who was actively involved in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. All the old American fears of nuclear warfare came rushing back, very similar to our fears of the advance of Communism during the Viet Nam era, and America declared war on Iraq. "American missiles hit targets in Baghdad in the early hours of March 20, 2003, marking the start of the campaign to remove the Iraqi leader."
Among the common people of America, Osama Bin Laden was all but forgotten.  In an amazing propaganda coup, The World Trade Center and the Two Towers began to evoke only further rage towards the Iraqi people, who did not have anything to do with the devastating event. Suddenly the common person was blaming everything on Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government.   We declared war not only on Iraq, but, according to President Bush, on Terror. Publicly, we begin to hold Iraq responsible for our own terror resulting from the Twin Towers' bombing. Why?
The most available answer is that President Bush wanted to act to stop terrorism; to take a stand against the unjust practices of Saddam Hussein in Iraq; to free the Iraqi people from an often-lethal dictatorship and to help them, not force them, to install a democratic government.  It is undoubtedly true that Sadaam Hussein was an extremely evil dictator.  However, what gave us the right to enter this country and pursue this course of action?  Just as in the Viet Nam War era, America stands behind its old assertion that we will tolerate no hostile country to harbor nuclear warfare, and the cold war with the Soviet Union left many with that assertion still held firmly in their hearts. However, "Saddam's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had formed the main justification for the action, though inspectors later concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles."  In fact, it is now common knowledge among Americans that Iraq held no weapons of mass destruction.
     Some Americans believe that the United Arab Emirates and the United States joined to ensure that the politics and economics in the Middle East would turn in a favorable direction for the civilized countries of the world.  Sadaam did have the goal of controlling the oil in the Mideast, as he expressed when he entered Kuwait. He was a loose cannon, an uncontrollable despot.  He would not work with his Arab brothers.  Were he ever to be successful in his bid to control the Mideastern oil flow, he would be able to exercise considerable impact on the economies of Europe and Japan.  Is it plausible that the United Stated and its economic allies used this opportunity to take control of Iraq because of its willful dictator? As an unstable and easily manipulated new democracy, would it not be more amenable to the United States, Europe, and the United Arab Emirates?  According to this view, we are effectively behaving as the United Arab Emirates' economic bulldog, guarding their main income source from volatile possibilities such as Saddam Hussein, while in turn being assured of our own cut of the gain.
     It is impossible to expect honest answers to this question from our politicians in America.  There has been so much duplicitous behavior shown by all our trusted officials that it is impossible to say for sure our true motives. Many Americans remember Vietnam, and wonder if perhaps the same situation—albeit with more success and less expenditure on our part—is taking place.  More still feel that it is our duty to enforce
democracy in those countries where Communism and dictatorships still hold firmly.
      Most likely, we press this war for a combination of motives.  We will definitely benefit economically from the goodwill of the United Arab Emirates, and perhaps in the future, Iraq will stabilize into a functional democracy.  Undoubtedly, the whole region will be better off without Sadaam Hussein, and as a people, perhaps we can feel that we are taking action against terrorists.
      It can certainly be said that we are bringing democracy to the country, although it could be argued that at this time we are not doing so successfully. "More than 2,000 coalition troops, and many thousands more Iraqi civilians, have been killed since the start of the military action."   Iraq is close to civil war, and today, on NBC News, the bodies of eighty-five Sunnis and Shiites were discovered in Iraq.
Ultimately, only the political leaders of the US know the real reasons why we have pressed the war in Iraq so assiduously. Sadly, it is unlikely that we will ever hear that truth from their lips. The only thing that those of us not in power can do is speculate upon the reasons. Of course, the many combinations of factual analyses ensure that there will always be hundreds of conjectures as to why we continue this war.  Perhaps more real information will come to light at some point in the future.
     However, I must ask:  How many American families have lost sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, or any loved one to the terrorism of Iraqi rebel groups? Whatever that toll, it is not as many as the Iraqi civilians have lost both to our attacks and to insurgent retaliation. Perhaps we shouldn't be asking why we pressed the war in Iraq so much as: Who or what gave us the authority to be there in the first place?  It seems that for American and Iraqi citizens alike, the War on Terror is causing more terror than it is stopping.  We must consider the idea that to some Iraqi citizens at least, we are the terrorist faction.  How many lives are we responsible for destroying, and truly in the name of what?  We say that we are fighting for their peace, for their freedom, and I know that many of us do mean that. However, morally, is it really up to us to enforce our ideas of "freedom" if a large number of Iraqis do not want us to do so?  
      The new leaders in Iraq now face an incredibly difficult challenge. "Though free from the yoke of its former president Saddam Hussein, pressing problems loom large for Iraq and its new leaders. Their paramount challenges include the restoration of civil order, reconstruction and the completion of a political transition." Not only must they attempt to maintain peace in a country already wracked with war, terrorism, rebellion, difference of religion, and overwhelming grief, but they must maintain it without breaking the new rules the US-led coalition has set for them.
The civilian death toll in Iraq has been steadily mounting since 2003.  Some of the Iraqi people understand our purpose; some of them are so angry about what they surely see as our invasion of their country that they choose to join insurgent groups throughout the nation. The transition in Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy has literally occurred. However, one must consider carefully the definition of success.  Despite the fact that the U.N. officially recognizes Iraq as a democracy, the country is in a complete state of turmoil.  Iraq has not known peace for over twenty years.  Were we simply the next catalyst for yet another chapter of chaos in their history books?  The Iraqi leaders must somehow miraculously provide for public services such as schools, utilities, and protection in the midst of almost constant warfare between the US-led coalition and the insurgent guerilla factions.
     These insurgent forces lie behind the majority of Iraq's turmoil.  "On the ground, the US-led coalition forces that ousted Saddam in 2003 have faced armed rebellions and guerrilla-style attacks.  Insurgents have targeted civilians, Iraqi security forces and international agencies."  Despite the obvious power of these rebels, however, the US-led coalition has done little to appease them.  Do they forget, perhaps, that these people are Iraqis just as much as the civilians the coalition is attempting to form? The insurgents have made it perfectly clear that they want the US-led coalition forces out of their country. Granted, it would seem that there is much still to be repaired and reformed in Iraq in the aftermath of the war, but "no timetable has been set for the withdrawal of coalition forces."   One would think that the coalition would be doing everything in their power to protect the peaceful civilians caught between the insurgents and the coalition forces. Would that not perhaps also include a parlay with the insurgent forces to assure them that we will leave as soon as we clean up the damage?
Arguably, a conference of that nature would not be so easy to call to order.  There have been atrocities of torture and of murder committed by both sides of the war in Iraq, and both have raised their hackles to the other. It will take discovering the identities of all the people (on both sides) responsible for those crimes and putting them on trial. Both sides also feel that the other is morally in the wrong. The sad truth is, however, that there is no clear black and white answer to this. We are behaving in a way precisely befitting a country as young and arrogant as our own, and they are behaving in a way precisely befitting an ancient and proud nation. Each deserves respect from the other, yet neither is giving it.
In all ways but funding and firepower, the US-led coalition forces and the Iraqi insurgents are equal. One major difference remains: Iraq is their home, not ours. Our right to be there is dubious. Should we really escalate the situation by continuing to disrespect the Iraqi people in their homes and on their own soil?
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In

V

1 min read
remember...remember...the 5th of November...
The Gunpowder Treason and plot..
I know of no reason
that the Gunpowder Treason
should ever be forgot...

I HEREBY BID EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS A MOVIE THEATRE WITHIN ANY SORT OF DISTANCE WHATSOEVER TO GO AND WATCH "V FOR VENDETTA". I WILL KNOW IF YOU DON'T. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GO WATCH THIS FILM. IT'S FABULOUS.

There are many things i could say about it, but none of them will do it justice.  The Wachowsky Brothers are hereby officially forgiven for the Matrix Reloaded and the Matrix Revolutions.
I am going to buy it. The Brothers deserve my hard-earned soul-marks for this beautiful film.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Though free from the yoke of its former president Saddam Hussein, pressing problems loom large for Iraq and its new leaders.
Their paramount challenges include the restoration of civil order, reconstruction and the completion of a political transition.

On the ground, the US-led coalition forces that ousted Saddam in 2003 have faced armed rebellions and guerrilla-style attacks. Insurgents have targeted civilians, Iraqi security forces and international agencies.


More than 2,000 coalition troops, and many thousands more Iraqi civilians, have been killed since the start of the military action.

OVERVIEW



OVERVIEW | FACTS | LEADERS | MEDIA


American missiles hit targets in Baghdad in the early hours of 20 March 2003, marking the start of the campaign to remove the Iraqi leader.

Saddam's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had formed the main justification for the action, though inspectors later concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles.

US and British ground forces entered from the south, with the leadership in Baghdad remaining defiant. By 9 April US forces had advanced into central Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's grip on power had withered.

Sovereignty was transferred to an interim government in June 2004 and six months later Iraqis voted in the first multi-party polls in 50 years.

Cradle of civilisation

Straddling the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and stretching from the Gulf to the Anti-Taurus Mountains, modern Iraq occupies roughly what was once ancient Mesopotamia, one of the cradles of human civilisation.


No timetable has been set for the withdrawal of coalition forces
In the Middle Ages Iraq was the centre of the Islamic Empire, with Baghdad the cultural and political capital of an area extending from Morocco to the Indian subcontinent.

Mongol invasions in the 13th century saw its influence wane, and it played a minor role in the region until independence from British control in 1932.

Following the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958 and a coup in 1968, Iraq became one of the centres of Arab nationalism under the control of the ruling Baath (Renaissance) party. Oil made the country rich, and when Saddam Hussein became president in 1979 petroleum made up 95% of its foreign exchange earnings.

But the war with Iran from 1980 to 1988 and the Gulf War in 1991 following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, together with the subsequent imposition of international sanctions, had a devastating effect on its economy and society. In 1991 the UN said Iraq had been reduced to a pre-industrial state, while later reports described living standards as being at subsistence level.


The Kurdish community has broken away to create a semi-autonomous region of its own in the north.

FACTS



OVERVIEW | FACTS | LEADERS | MEDIA



Population: 26.5 million (UN, 2005)
Area: 438,317 sq km (169,235 sq miles)
Capital: Baghdad
Major languages: Arabic, Kurdish
Major religion: Islam
Life expectancy: 57 years (men), 60 years (women) (UN)
Monetary unit: 1 Iraqi dinar = 1,000 fils
Main exports: Crude oil
GNI per capita: n/a
Internet domain: .iq
International dialling code: 964
LEADERS



OVERVIEW | FACTS | LEADERS | MEDIA


Interim president: Jalal Talabani


Jalal Talabani: His selection ended political impasse

Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani was elected by MPs to the largely-ceremonial post in April 2005.

He heads the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of the two main Kurdish parties in northern Iraq. The first non-Arab to head an Arab state, he promised to work with all ethnic and religious factions to rebuild Iraq.

The three-man presidency includes his deputies, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, a Shia, and the former interim president Ghazi Yawer, a Sunni.

Interim prime minister: Ibrahim Jaafari

The Shia-led alliance that won parliamentary polls in December 2005 has nominated Ibrahim Jaafari, the current interim prime minister, as their candidate to lead Iraq's first full-term government since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  
Ibrahim Jaafari, candidate of election-winning Shia list

Mr Jaafari, from the Dawaa Party - a Shia Islamist movement - was named as interim premier by Iraq's newly-inaugurated presidential team in April 2005.

He went on to form Iraq's first democratically-elected government in more than 50 years.

His cabinet oversaw the hotly-debated drafting of a new constitution, approved by voters in October 2005. The charter paved the way for parliamentary polls in December, which were won by the Shia-led United Iraqi Alliance.

But the alliance failed to win an overall majority and is set to form a coalition government.

Ibrahim Jaafari, a former doctor, lived as an exile in Iran and Britain after a Shia rebellion against Saddam Hussein in the 1970s was crushed.


Deputy prime ministers: Ahmed Chalabi, Ruz Nuri Shawis
Foreign minister: Hoshyar Zebari
Interior minister: Baqir Solagh
MEDIA



OVERVIEW | FACTS | LEADERS | MEDIA


Media outlets have flourished since the downfall of Saddam. But although Iraq has been described as having one of the most free media environments in the Arab world, scores of journalists and media workers have fallen victim to insurgents and coalition military action.

There are more than 100 newspapers and magazines on offer in Baghdad and other cities and private radio and television stations have mushroomed.

The TV and radio stations set up by the now-defunct US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) are now part of a publicly-funded broadcaster, the Iraqi Public Broadcasting Service.

Private media outlets are often linked to the political, ethnic or religious groups which are jostling for a say in Iraq's future. But they face a lack of resources, in particular a constant power supply.

  
Banned under Saddam, satellite TV enjoys a large following


Iraq's television revolution  

Foreign broadcasters also target Iraq. They include the BBC, Paris-based Radio Monte Carlo and the US-backed Al-Hurra TV, Radio Sawa and Radio Free Iraq. Many of these stations are available via local relays in Baghdad and other cities; the BBC World Service is relayed in Baghdad and Basra.

Iran's Al-Alam TV, which broadcasts in Arabic, can be picked up in Baghdad without the need for a satellite dish.

Satellite TV, though popular, remains a luxury for most Iraqis. The use of satellite dishes and receivers was banned under the former regime. The pan-Arab news stations Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera are widely watched.

In Iraq's northern autonomous Kurdish enclaves, rival factions operate their own media outlets.

TIMELINE IRAQ 2001-PRESENT

2001 February - Britain, US carry out bombing raids to try to disable Iraq's air defence network. The bombings have little international support.

2001 May - Saddam's son Qusay elected to the leadership of the ruling Baath Party, fuelling speculation that he's being groomed to succeed his father.

2002 April - Baghdad suspends oil exports to protest against Israeli incursions into Palestinian territories. Despite calls by Saddam Hussein, no other Arab countries follow suit. Exports resume after 30 days.

Weapons inspectors return

2002 September - US President George W Bush tells sceptical world leaders at a UN General Assembly session to confront the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq - or stand aside as the US acts. In the same month British Prime Minister Tony Blair publishes a dossier on Iraq's military capability.

  In Iraq a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilised world - and we will not allow it

US President George W Bush, February 2003
2002 November - UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq backed by a UN resolution which threatens serious consequences if Iraq is in "material breach" of its terms.

2003 March - Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix reports that Iraq has accelerated its cooperation but says inspectors need more time to verify Iraq's compliance.


Saddam ousted

2003 17 March - UK's ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended; arms inspectors evacuate; US President George W Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.

2003 20 March - American missiles hit targets in Baghdad, marking the start of a US-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. In the following days US and British ground troops enter Iraq from the south.

  
Baghdad, 9 April 2003: A symbol of Saddam's power tumbles
In Depth: The struggle for Iraq


BBC's Rageh Omaar on the day's drama  
2003 9 April - US forces advance into central Baghdad. Saddam Hussein's grip on the city is broken. In the following days Kurdish fighters and US forces take control of the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. There is looting in Baghdad and elsewhere.

2003 April - US lists 55 most-wanted members of former regime in the form of a deck of cards. Former deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz is taken into custody.

2003 May - UN Security Council backs US-led administration in Iraq and lifts economic sanctions. US administrator abolishes Baath Party and institutions of former regime.

2003 July - US-appointed Governing Council meets for first time. Commander of US forces says his troops face low-intensity guerrilla-style war. Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay killed in gun battle in Mosul.

Guerrilla warfare intensifies

2003 August - Deadly bomb attacks on Jordanian embassy and UN HQ in Baghdad. Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, or Chemical Ali, captured. Car bomb in Najaf kills 125 including Shia leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim.


  
Soldiers and civilians are targets in ongoing violence


Iraq Body Count: War dead figures
Who are the insurgents?  

2003 14 December - Saddam Hussein captured in Tikrit.

2004 February - More than 100 killed in Irbil in suicide attacks on offices of main Kurdish factions.

2004 March - Suicide bombers attack Shia festival-goers in Karbala and Baghdad, killing 140 people.

2004 April/May - Shia militias loyal to radical cleric Moqtada Sadr take on coalition forces.

Hundreds are reported killed in fighting during the month-long US military siege of the Sunni Muslim city of Falluja.

Photographic evidence emerges of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US troops.

Sovereignty and elections


2004 June - US hands sovereignty to interim government headed by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Saddam Hussein transferred to Iraqi legal custody.


2004 August - Fighting in Najaf between US forces and Shia militia of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr.

2004 November - Major US-led offensive against insurgents in Falluja.


  
Religious, ethnic fault lines run through Iraqi politics


Guide to Iraqi political parties
2006: Iraq election results confirmed  
2005 30 January - An estimated eight million people vote in elections for a Transitional National Assembly. The Shia United Iraqi Alliance wins a majority of assembly seats. Kurdish parties come second.


2005 28 February - At least 114 people are killed by a massive car bomb in Hilla, south of Baghdad. It is the worst single such incident since the US-led invasion.

2005 April - Amid escalating violence, parliament selects Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani as president. Ibrahim Jaafari, a Shia, is named as prime minister.


2005 May onwards - Surge in car bombings, bomb explosions and shootings: Iraqi ministries put the civilian death toll for May at 672, up from 364 in April.


2005 June - Massoud Barzani is sworn in as regional president of Iraqi Kurdistan.


2005 July - Study compiled by the non-governmental Iraq Body Count organisation estimates that nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the 2003 US-led invasion.

  
If convicted, Saddam could face the death penalty


Q&A: Saddam on trial
Timeline of Saddam's trial  
2005 August - Draft constitution is endorsed by Shia and Kurdish negotiators, but not by Sunni representatives.

More than 1,000 people are killed during a stampede at a Shia ceremony in Baghdad.

Suicide bomber blows up a fuel tanker, killing 90 people in Musayibb.

2005 September - 182 people are killed in attacks in Baghdad, including a car bomb attack on a group of workers in a mainly-Shia district.

Saddam on trial

2005 October - Saddam Hussein goes on trial on charges of crimes against humanity.

Voters approve a new constitution, which aims to create an Islamic federal democracy.

2005 November - Suicide bombers target mosques in Khanaqin, killing at least 74 people.

2005 15 December - Iraqis vote for the first, full-term government and parliament since the US-led invasion.

2006 4-5 January - More than 150 people are killed in suicide bombings and attacks targeting Karbala, Ramadi, Miqdadiya and Baghdad.

2006 20 January - Shia-led United Iraqi Alliance emerges as the winner of December's parliamentary elections, but fails to gain an absolute majority.

2006 February - A bomb attack on an important Shia shrine in Samarra unleashes a wave of sectarian violence in which hundreds of people are killed.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Featured

woah... by Furupuru, journal

Times are Tough by Furupuru, journal

America in Iraq? by Furupuru, journal

V by Furupuru, journal

Don't bother reading this... by Furupuru, journal