‘The grand disconnect in the region is between the political sentiments of ordinary people, which are overwhelmingly for an end to occupation, and the political calculations of leaders, which emphasise the benefits of using the Americans and consequently of extending their stay - at least for the time being.I am not sure the Americans are confused or if they just face a difficult situation. The barbarian Shiite religious fanatics in Iraq want nothing to do with a secular, Western-style, democracy based on principals of tolerance and co-existence. The barbarian Sunni thugs also despise any notion of democracy because their leaders are gangsters who resent the loss of tyrannical powers that they had under Saddam.
In this grim picture, the Americans appear the least sure and most confused. With unattainable objectives, wobbly plans, changing tactics, shifting alliances and ever-increasing casualties, it is not clear any longer what they want or how they are going to achieve it. By setting themselves up to be manipulated, they give credence to an old Arab saying: the magic has taken over the magician.’
The Americans have the best of intentions in Iraq, in seeking to install a civilized democracy in Iraq, but it is difficult to deal with thugs and fanatics who find it simple to hold to ransom a civilian population, that has suffered decades of intimidation. It is a standard totalitarian/terrorist gambit. And every time a murderous thug blows up a hundred innocent civilians in a Bhagdad market place, the western media attribute blame to the US for yet another failure in Iraq.
And gullible dills around the world gulp down this contrived, terrorist propaganda effort without reflection.
Posts
7 comments:
The Americans have the best of intentions in Iraq, in seeking to install a civilized democracy in Iraq
That, no doubt, is why the Americans are building 14 permanent bases in Iraq, why it is building a multi-billion dollar 700 acre fortified embassy in the middle of Baghdad, and why it is defying the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of Iraqis (most of the governing parties were elected on a platform of calling for immediate American withdrawal, and recent polls - admittedly made in difficult circumstances - show that over 70% of Iraqis want the occupation ended).
I know who the gullible dills are Harry - those who continue to swallow warmongering bulldust from leaders who have proven themselves to be consistently both ill-intentioned and incompetent.
If I sound bitter, mate, I am. I figure 600,000+ Iraqi dead and 3 million Iraqi refugees entitle me to be bitter at those who continue to enable such a disaster.
DD, I stick with the statement you italicise 100%. That was and is the intention.
Are you seriously suggesting the US wants to make a permanent colony of Iraq and that is the motive for the invasion? That is ridiculous - if the US wished to be colonialiist it could grab territory and resouirces more cheaply than this.
The US are responsible for all the suicide attacks in markets that kill hundreds of civilians, car bombs, kidnappings & executions that make up the bulk of the current casualty rate? No, they are not.
The US, whatever their faults, are not ill-intentioned - their barbarian enemies in Iraq are.
I agree with you. I think that Fox's Gibson described what I take to be your views more eloquently:
U.S. invasion "unmasked" Iraqis as "knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century"
On the other-hand, I think that the defeat in Iraq will be remembered as event not too dissimilar to what our boys experienced in Gallipoli; incompetent leadership, negligent analysis, and a lesson that the age of western imperialism is coming to an end.
I think imperialism has nought to do with the situation in Iraq. Its a left-wing myth. Yes the US wanted to secure reliable oil supplies. So what? Would it be reasonable for such supplies to be in the hands of terrorists?
The quote by the way made it clear that the majority of Iraqis want no involvement in the conflict and that it is the leadership of the various groups who are seeking to promote conflict for their own particular needs.
Whatever their failings the Americans do not wander into marketplaces and kill innocent civilians as well as themselves.
This was not a situation they sought. Why not atrtribute responsibility where it lies?
"Would it be reasonable for such supplies to be in the hands of terrorists?"
Dislikeable has he might have been, Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist.
rabee,
I liked this piece courtesy of Tim Blair.
I also tend to believe that there were better intentions in Iraq - a hope that a democratic west-aligned Iraq would help with a bunch of problems for the US - Iran, Israel and eventually Saudi Arabia. My impression is that Iraqi exiles encouraged this belief in willing believers.
If the US had wanted oil they would have let Sadaam keep Kuwait and after a decent interval made deals (they might have even better off doing this) - no need to invade.
Post a Comment