Danish Cartoon backlash, there embassy is blown up in pakistan!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DiamondHearts]

They should understand that even with all our faults, the US does not mean the Iraqis any harm. The Iraqis already understand that, they read the papers. The insurgents are fighting each other for power, some of them want revenge for what their lives have become, for their loved ones who were casualites of our invasion, some of them want us to leave. I would suggest leaving until the mess is sorted out one way or another, millions already have and have not been treated well by their neighbors. But you know, we didn't invade Pakistan.

Obviously Iraqi people do not welcome the occupation and destruction of their country, and who would? In a rather simplistic American mindset, it may be possible to view the situation in way, but its no excuse for ignorance.

By attempting to deny the legitimacy of the Iraqi resistance (those fighting US troops) by comparing them to foolish sectarian militias (many funded by the US military themselves), you are trying to misinform the viewers.

There are many ways to settle this conflict (yes, even now), but the US must be willing to do this. The first step is to recognize that a mistake has been made. It can be very easily resolved by allowing the Arab league or Organization of the Islamic Conference to take over the situation. The US is seen as a transgressor and foreign occupier, hence it will be impossible to have peace with the current state of affairs in Iraq. Neighboring countries and fellow Arab and Muslim countries have the most interest in restructuring Iraq and bringing it back to normalcy.

 

[spidergoat]

There won't be peace when we leave either. The destruction of buildings and infrastructure was caused by the US, but the vast majority of destruction was due to the sectarian militias like Al Sadr's vast army fighting for their own peace of the pie. Iraqis don't know how to live with Democracy, that much is clear. Neighboring Iran will piss off the Sunnis. It's simplistic to say all kinds of occupation make resistance legitimate. Sure, we shouldn't have gone in there and we were incompetent when we did, but Saddam is dead, which is more than the Iraqis could do on their own.

 

[S.A.M.]

There won't be peace when we leave either. The destruction of buildings and infrastructure was caused by the US, but the vast majority of destruction was due to the sectarian militias like Al Sadr's vast army fighting for their own peace of the pie. Iraqis don't know how to live with Democracy, that much is clear. Neighboring Iran will piss off the Sunnis. It's simplistic to say all kinds of occupation make resistance legitimate. Sure, we shouldn't have gone in there and we were incompetent when we did, but Saddam is dead, which is more than the Iraqis could do on their own.

And Saddam's death has changed what? If nothing else, he maintained the secular fabric of the country, where people were living together and women had rights; all the Americans have done is turn it into a hell hole that will take decades to recover from, if at all.

 

[spidergoat]

It could have been a good thing, in fact Bush could have killed him with a missile, but delayed the attack that would have prevented the war.

 

[S.A.M.]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[Bells]

And Saddam's death has changed what? If nothing else, he maintained the secular fabric of the country, where people were living together and women had rights; all the Americans have done is turn it into a hell hole that will take decades to recover from, if at all.

I doubt the Shiites would agree they had equal rights under Saddam's ruling of Iraq. They suffered over two decades of suppression under his rule. He "maintained the secular fabric" of Iraq by denying equal rights to a whole group of his population. Nor would the Kurds agree with your statement.

 

[S.A.M.]

I doubt the Shiites would agree they had equal rights under Saddam's ruling of Iraq. They suffered over two decades of suppression under his rule. He "maintained the secular fabric" of Iraq by denying equal rights to a whole group of his population. Nor would the Kurds agree with your statement.

You mean he denied 60% of the population a theocracy? As they will now have? Are the Shias better off now? Are the Kurds?

 

[DeepThought]

I doubt the Shiites would agree they had equal rights under Saddam's ruling of Iraq. They suffered over two decades of suppression under his rule. He "maintained the secular fabric" of Iraq by denying equal rights to a whole group of his population. Nor would the Kurds agree with your statement.

But a Kurdish guy at my work place absolutely hates George Bush and anyone who sympathizes with American goals.

Apparently, most Kurds feel this way.

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

You mean he denied 60% of the population a theocracy? As they will now have? Are the Shias better off now? Are the Kurds?

I am not saying they are. But you can't say it was all rosy and wonderful for them either while Saddam was in power. Because it was not.

For the greater majority of them, it is as if they have fallen from the pan and into the fire. It sucked under Saddam and it still sucks for them now.

 

[S.A.M.]

Here is what educated Iraqis think:

"When the Americans started this whole war issue," said one, who will be referred to as person No. 1, "we started to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and we walked toward it. But when the war happened, that light was the American train coming the other way that ran us over."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/earlyshow/main1649689.shtml