I agree, and I think that this is a good thing.
But it wouldn't be happening were the US acting as a "colonial occupier", now would it? There certainly would not have been elections.
The basic problem is that the Iraq that we are creating will either be broken by civil war with the result that it continues to be a training ground for terrorists, or alternatively, it will be a country that is united against us and no longer afraid of the US military.
So let me understand this.. What you're saying is that Iraq, under Saddam's brutal Ba'thist regime was NOT BROKEN, nor was it "united" against us???
Come one now...
The Iraqi people have some major cultural "ISSUES" to deal with. Face it.. They have NEVER been a nation of individuals who hold the same values and ideals. The country was arbitrarily carved out of the Ottoman Empire and placed under a foreign King (Faysal Hussein) for decades. So they are really have to come to some terms about how to share power, wealth, and resources in this country.
It may really be necessary for them to enact something similar to what Colombia did during their period of "La Violencia" where opposing political factions took turns each year running the government. Pretty inefficient, but it helped to create some trust and cooperation amongst ideologically contrary power elites.
As to your claims that the US military is all happy about being in Iraq, I think you're full of crap.
Well, let's see.. I've been over here for 1 1/2 years living this, while you've been watching it on the Communist News Network..
So you tell me who's more credible??
And btw, I don't think I ever said "all". But I feel safe in saying that a large majority understand why we're here.. No doubt they'd all rather be at home. But not at the cost of just dropping everything and letting this country lapse into a bloody civil war..
Hawk |
