1. the American invaders announced that they were going to be welcomed as liberators and covered in flowers by the people. In fact, the truth is that they were seen for what they really were, that is to say an occupying
force and over 1500 american soldiers were killed by the Iraqi resistance and over 10,000 severely wounded and probably handicapped for life. And this massacre continue today.

2. This occupying force then claimed to have "won the hearts and minds" of the people, but instead, the humiliations, the arbitrary imprisonment,the torture carried out in the prisons, the blatant crimes and massive destruction such as in the city of Fallujah, has made the people hate the occupying force as never before. Consequently the occupiers prefer to avoid contact at all costs with the Iraqi people, who keep on asking them the awkward question of "when will you go home?", and instead pass on the buck to the Iraqi police of maintaining order.

3. Anyone who resists the American occupation is branded as terrorists, just as the nazi soldiers called the French resistance terrorists too. Bush is also smoke-screening with his attempt to make believe that the resistance is either composed of foreigners or old followers of Saddam Hussein. The uncomfortable truth is that the vast majority of the resistance is composed of Iraqis happy to have been rid of Saddam Hussein, but who also want the occupying forces to leave their country.

4. Finally, the recent elections are wheeled out as an American victory, as if it is the miracle cure which will bring peace by magic. They claim that democracy will be a sort of final solution bringing peace and somehow not specified, magically dissolve all anti-zionist and anti-american feeling.


The truth is that if the Arab people were to vote right now to see if they were pro or anti Israeli or anti American policy, the vast majority would be anti. And that is Bush¹s biggest defeat. As long as he can pass the blame of the Middle East problems and terrorism onto a few dictators, all was well. All one had to do was overthrow the nasty dictators and all would be fine.


But this is far from the truth. Though Saddam definitely tortured and killed many of his co-citizens and he has far less blood on his hands compared to the number murdered by the Americans, such as the 500,000 children who died because of the economic sanctions or the 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed by the invasion and occupation and whose number has not finished swelling yet.


The Iraqis will not forget those numbers in a hurry. The elections have already allowed the religious authorities to win the majority in the new Iraqi parliament. The United States of course are doing all they can to "supervise" both the composition of the new "democratically elected"government and the revision of the Iraqi constitution.


But what is for sure, is that if the future Iraqi government is really democratically elected, if it really represents the people¹s opinion, as should a democratic government, it will be both anti-american and anti-israeli. If 80% of the population is anti something, democracy cannot help but reveal this position. In that case, George Bush will find himself confronted with an anti-american and anti-zionist feeling that is not just the whim of a dictator, but the democratic will of a people, which if one respects the principles of democracy, is non questionable.


The fact that the Palestinians elected a leader who is for peace and dialogue does not mean that 90% of the Palestinian people have become pro-zionist or pro-israeli or are ready to accept the forced expropriations, the wall, the illegal colonisation of their land, the annexation of the occupied territories and the refusal of the return of millions of refugees chased out of Palestine. If a referendum, which is a supreme manifestation of democracy, were to take place in Palestine, the answer is obvious. And so it will be just as obvious if held in Iraq. The fact that tomorrow Egypt and other countries might adopt western style democracy doesn't mean that the Arab and Islamic world will suddenly turn pro American or pro Israeli.


Democracy, if it is a true and free democracy, will only show more clearly that what was previously thought to be the whims of a bloody dictator, are in fact the deeply popular held views of the majority.


This democracy might change the leaders, but not the popular feeling. There is no magic wand. These popular feelings are deeply rooted in the population and were conceived by a strong sense of injustice, humiliation and anti-arabism of western powers, whose colonial past reinforces their negative image.


A true democracy can only highlight what their previous dictators were expressing, and illustrate how the majority felt it too.


But that is exactly what George Bush doesn't want to happen, because if it were to occur, it would mean his policies had completely failed. If a referendum held by the democratically elected governments of Iraq, the Palestinians and other Arab countries were to confirm the anti-zionist and anti-american feelings of the people, that would mean that the American invasion had not only been useless, but had in fact also aggravated the problem since the hostility can no longer be attributed to a "nasty dictator" but is indeed a true and deep popular sentiment.


The pro-islamic majority already surfacing in the Iraqi elections is bothering the American president. In fact what he would really like is not this democracy that he talks about so much, but really an "americanocracy". That is to say, a democratically elected regime which is pro-American. But since the vast majority of the Arab people are anti American, George Bush will have to betray his own so called democratic principles so as not to lose face by imposing regimes which give the illusion of being democratic through an unending fiddling of the electoral rules necessary to put pro American elements into power, which are no more than puppet regimes.


Bush¹s refusal to accept a true democracy and his surreptitious replacement of it with an americanocracy is not limited to Arab countries. It has already been put in place in Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Nicaragua, and many other countries. Venezuela and North Korea are next on his list.


But the place where this americanocracy, which is the negation of a true democracy, is most obvious, is in the organism responsible for maintaining peace in the world and avoiding conflict: the United Nations. If democracy really existed in the UN, then China would already be a majority in the decisions with almost 25% of the world population, whereas the USA only represents 5% of humanity. That was why they invented the "Security council" which groups together 7 countries, not because they are the most populated, which already makes it non democratic, but because they are the most powerful. So if one powerful country does not agree with the democratic decision of the majority, it can apply its veto and the majority democratic decision will not be applied.


It was in fact this that pushed the US to invade Iraq unilaterally. France had promised to veto the UN resolution allowing for the invasion of Iraq. The US decided to act alone. That was the first time that americanocracy showed its true face. Usually it operates hidden under the mask of democracy.


If this policy which functions in the UN were to exist in the US, then certain progressive and populated states such as California or New York would not have their say during the big elections; a national "security council" of pro Bush states would have the right to veto the majority decisions taken by the rest of the country. And if this right to veto were suddenly used by a so called ³dissident² then the pro Bush council would still be able to act unilaterally and illegally with a coalition of the willing.


This is just a form of bullying, otherwise known as the rule of the strongest, which is another way of describing fascism.