Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
why?
the americans invaded iraq, lebell.
whether you like it or not, many of the folk fighting in iraq understand that as a colonial occupation. they understand the elections as an american fraud. why should they understand it otherwise? seriously--why should they?
i understand that, sitting in the us watching things unfold from afar, you might be inclined to attribute other motives to this farce--but these attributions rely on very different conditions (sitting in front of a tv or reading information on the net or in print from the comfort of your home in a place that has not been invaded by another power, one that in fact has talked itself up as liberating you while in fact it has found itself bogged down in an ongoing, bloody war--not insurgency--a war, the same war, which has not ended and which shows no signs of ending.)
of course this whole situation is the fault of george w bush and the neocons within his administration who developed and supported the line that lead into this mess.
|
And if we hadn't invaded they would be having elections...?
But whatever your opinion on the war, your use of "colonial" is not correct: America is not setting up any "American" villiages, nor are we taking the country's resources, nor are we appointing permanent governors.
Quite the opposite, we are
trying to get them to elect their own government and I am surprised and shocked that you don't support that.
What alternative do you propose? That we withdraw unilaterally and let the country disolve into civil war, which it surely would do?
No, whatever your opinion of the initial war, you should be supporting our efforts to get a legitimate government elected so that we can leave. Otherwise, it seems to me that you are against the effort only because we are sponsoring it, which is illogical.