Originally posted by Jakomo
Errr, wtf does Western Media have to do with this? The Iraqis are being militarily occupied, their papers censored, their homes searched and their
people killed for PROTESTING. The Western Media is pliant and useless. If every single Iraqi in Iraq signed a petition to get US troops out of their
country, and sent it to every network, do you HONESTLY think the Occupation Authority would say "Okay boys let's pack it in". Laughable.
When the western media gets to report people being murdered, their bodies strung up as trophies, then the consensus among western citizenry shifts
towards
Let’s b!tch-slap those barbarians and teach them a lesson. On the other hand, if western media is reporting Iraqis organizing, forming
political parties, working towards non-violent stability and forming a government that’s going to be stable, open and protective of the rights of its
citizenry, then the pressure will be on the occupying powers to
help them do this and then get out of the way asap!
Your focus on the short-term goal of getting the US out of there is somewhat narrow-minded. The real issue, and the issue that should concern Iraqis
the most, is what happens after.
Originally posted by Jakomo
LOL that's rich. How about YOU try "facilitating stability" when you have 130,000 foreign troops who don't even speak your language stopping you
at checkpoints, imposing curfews and disbanding your army. Try having little electricity, little clean water and NO JOB! Get a grip, man, the United
States says their MAIN PURPOSE IN IRAQ is to facilitate stability and they suck at it. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame your administration for the
lack of stability.
And if those troops are trying to facilitate the distribution of electricity and clean water, what will killing them accomplish? If they were pulled
out today, what would fill that power vacuum and how good would it be at distributing electricity and clean water? If there were further
demonstrations and violence directed against this new entity, how do you imagine it would respond?
Originally posted by Jakomo
Another great one. Why CAN'T they support a political party that espouses violence, if it's not violence against themselves? Would that be, say,
DEMOCRATIC. They should be able to choose WHOEVER they want to lead the country, but the US is instead "installing" government officials. I don't
know if you're smart enough to realize it, but I know most of the world recognizes THAT as installing a puppet government that is subservient to the
US.
Only time will tell what sort of government Iraq will end up with, but I have to point out the hypocrisy here. Are you against violence or not? Would
you rather see an Iraqi government that spends its resources improving the lives of its citizens, or making war?
And for the record, when I say
building support for a political party that doesn’t depend on violence to get their point across. I mean
violence against Iraqis.
Originally posted by Jakomo
Huh? I'm talking about the security that one has that when you leave your house, you're fairly certain you won't be attacked by bandits or
criminals or trigger-happy troops. You know, basic security.
How about the security that comes with having enough food to eat? My understanding is that among those killed were security forces guarding food
shipments.
Originally posted by Jakomo
Since US troops and civilians are being killed every single day, then yes, this was inevitable as in "incapable of being avoided". This has less
to do with Iraqi culture (NOT Arab, Iraqi) than it does with a military occupation of an unwilling population. How do you not see that?
You said yourself there are peaceful Iraqis who support the US. I think it’s interesting that even you chose the adjective
peaceful to describe
them.
Originally posted by Jakomo
Well nothing you've said or written on this site that I've ever read demonstrates that. Nothing.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. Let me make it clear for you now.
I did not support the war against Iraq. It is my opinion that the Bush administration lied about our reasons for doing it, and I think it was obvious
from the beginning.
However, in having invaded Iraq, it is also my opinion that has created an obligation on us. That obligation is not to leave until the area is
stabilized, that Iraq has the foundations of a government capable of keeping order and rebuilding their economy. While invading was arguably bad,
invading and then leaving, standing by and just watching as Iraqi factions struggle for power violently would be even worse. If they also create a
government that would protect the civil rights of its citizenry, that would be a nice bonus.
That you don’t seem to give any thought to what will happen in Iraq after the US leaves tell me that your concern is not really for the Iraqi
citizens.