|
They might not have been directly involved in 9/11, but Iraq was actively supporting (and rewarding) international terrorism - directed at the US and its allies - for years. They were actively seeking WMD. They were a threat to the region, and to the US.
reply: none of these has turned out to be accurate.
They weren't harmless, innocent African Congo pygmies hunting for their dinner in the forest. Im saying that this 'colonial occupation' cannot be compared to past examples of legitimate colonial occupation. I don't believe the current situation in Iraq is an example of colonial occupation at all.
reply: what exactly is a "legitimate colonial occupation"?
I remember watching an interview of Allawi where he mentioned that he was going to take care of the insurgent situation "Iraqi-style", that is, with an iron fist and opposite the way the Americans - overly sensitive to political fallout - balked in Fallujah. [/QUOTE]
if the americans flatten najaf, they will engender a far worse political situation than they already find themselves in. if the iraqis "government" forces do it, the situation will end up in the same place because no-one os fooled by what props that "government" up---the curious thing to me remains allawi's apparent decision to torpedo truce talks when it appeared that they had almost worked--this is more obvious in the al-jazeera and bbc stories above than in the ny times.
i cannot see why he would have done it. i do not understand--again--by what logic it makes any sense to level najaf--or do anything close to that.
sorry about typographic confusion--havent quite figured out the quoting mechanism.....
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|