What is wrong with it? Americans wants a democratic elections in their country, iraqis wants another form. North Koreans wants another form of Govt. It is not for outsiders to decide what is good for every one. Sadr was not not trying to bring his form of govt in US of A. So if majority of them wants such a Govt so be it. What is your probelm with it? (you as in Bush Admn.)

I honestly don't believe that the U.S. is trying to harm Iraq.

But I guess rest of the world do not subscribe to that view. Coupled with recent meeting of Sharon and Bush, where they both presented an excellent opportunity to palastinians, not many view bush as a do gooder.

It's a battle against people who vehemently oppose a democratic Iraq. The task is to crush those enemies without making life impossible for those who fundamentally want what we want.

The cognitive dissonance in this comment rivals that of our own president. How do people function in the morass of such doublethink?

When I see news where Gen Kimmit talks about being dissapointed by Iraqi soldires and urging people to collaborate with them, the natural question that comes to my mind is, why shouldn't they fight the oppressers.

I am not impressed by the "thugs and bandits" theory. People who staged armed rebellion against the current empire were always termed as such. From my perspective I do not see any difference between people who tried to evict British from India with violent means and the people who kill Americans.

Americans had no business to be at Iraq to start with. Iraq was never a threat to them. Even if they were, they need not had to hide behind WMD to that remove that threat. They did not need any WMD excuse to attack Taliban and most of the world supported them.

North Korea is a bigger threat to US but if you touch them they will sting real hard. It was not about removing a dictator either. Then they could have started at one end of Africa distributng freedom all along. Americans were not interested in Iraqi's freedom when Saddam was "Our Dictator", just like Pres. Musharaff now. (not comparing their oppression though, just that both are dictators.) And that situation has not changed even now. All Americans wants is to put a puppet in Bagdad.

Then their is this talk about bringing them civilization. Bush talks about this a lot. wtf is that B**tard talking about? Iraq is one of cradles of civilization and even if they are economically poor now, that do not lessen their culture and civilization. perhaps Bush do not understand what it means to be civilised.

Enough rant. coming back to my original question, why an American in Iraq is not a legitimate target of Iraqi freedom fightors and why shouldn't they fight Americans to kick them out of their country?

I am waiting for the news that one day Americans are ejected out of Iraq and Iraq is ruled by Iraqis. That will make world safe from American agression for next 30 years.

The techniques are simple: relentlessly provoke coalition troops, incite collateral damage, and where necessary, attack Iraqi civilians outright. Press their advantage by provoking ever more damaging retaliation from Coalition troops-- spurred on by bloodthirsty calls for revenge and pacification in American popular discourse. It's a very effective strategy, in that it uses our own strength against us, and from the tone of some posts on this board, the perpetrators should be quite happy with the results.

There is exactly one way out of this mess. We have to shut this feedback loop down now. Going after the perpetrators is fine. But right now we have to separate the real perpetrators from the thousands of red-blooded Iraqi citizens who have been sucked into this conflict. If we continue to bludgeon the populace indiscriminately with 500-lb bombs and collective punishment, you'll be amazed how quickly we can lose an entire country's support. And if that happens, then what's the point of being there at all?

It is difficult to have the right perspective, when you're distracted by events nearby. Every little development instantly become of primordial importance, depending on your views, preferences, and (sadly) prejudices.

Changing societies is difficult, because changing human behaviour is hard. Remember how long it took to denazify Germany? Even now, they do have latent, covert xenophobia in some parts of their population (fortunately nothing too serious). Was it wrong to change their previous way of thinking? No, not really. It was beneficial for us, for all european neighbors, and also for them.

The key to opening societies is patience. Without endurance, it is impossible to achieve this goal. You've got to educate a whole new generation (perhaps even two or three) to your ideals, before you can hope to succeed. We had enough wisdom (and self interest) to stick to that program after WWII, and we're been reaping the benefits for more than a half century since then. In other parts of the world, we were not so patient. What were the consequences there?...

There's really nothing wrong with discussing pros and cons of the war in Iraq. Fortunately, we're living in a democracy and exchanging opinions helps (though not always) preventing the worst mishaps. But when we decide to take a course of action (and we did it democratically, IIRC), then we should try to stick to it, so we may have a chance to achieve something beneficial. We owe it to ourselves to be consequent enough and not pull out at the slightest road-block. We owe it to the people we're supposedly trying to help.

It would be great, if all parties threw in their opinions about the best way to handle this situation (After all, we've assume responsibility for all iraqis, and the least we should do is to act responsibly to the best of our ability). Will that happen? No, probably not. We'll see a lot of partisan bickering instead, as always. Instead of assuming our responsibilities as an active party in a large, worldwide conflict, we prefer to revert back to petty political domestic disputes.

Yes, we're still in the fog; and the fog is getting thicker up until election day...

Some politicians (especially ones with enormous  heads) have been comparing the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam, and, since politicians are smart, this must be taken seriously. Here are some of the similarities I have identified:

* Both Vietnam and Iraq have an 'i' in them.

* Both are foreign countries.

* Both wars were opposed by stupid, smelly hippies.

* Both wars were supported and then opposed by John Kerry.

Those are some striking similarities. So, if the war is like Vietnam, what did we learn from Vietnam? Well, what we learned from Vietnam is that, if you lose a war like Vietnam, forever after people will question future wars by saying they are like Vietnam. Think about how things would be different if we decisively won Vietnam; then, someone not liking a war would say, "We're going to get bogged down in this war like... well... no other war in American history." And no one would listen to that person.

While Democrats and Republicans fight over who best to stick with the blame for our Southeast Asian ass-whipping, both sides remain completely blind to the fact that Vietnam was not really Johnson's or Nixon's Vietnam, any more than Iraq is Bush's Iraq. Vietnam was, first and foremost, Vietnam's Vietnam--and the current absurd debate about the comparison between the two wars has proven that the vast majority of Americans still have trouble grasping that fact.

First of all, it is important to remember that al-Sadr's "little rebellion" is a response to US provocation. The statement in the Right position above that Sadr had little popular support was completely true until the US decided to attack him. The US chose to shut down his newspaper and, shortly thereafter, to arrest some of his key people. As I predicted right here on K5, this gave him the credibility he needed (actually, I was writing before the arrests, the newspaper incident was enough). What kind of response did we expect? I am stunned that in the K5 thread on the newspaper closure, almost the entire debate circled around whether the censorship was consistent with the democracy we supposedly wish to promote. Almost no one (but me) said that the act could have serious violent consequences or would garner power for al_Sadr. BTW, the CPA didn't even allege that Sadr was advocating violence, only that he was telling lies that might have such an effect.

Secondly, if we attack Najaf we will find out how "small" this group of militants is. I can't believe people are still clinging to that. How did a small group of militants take control of multiple cities and a sizable portion of Bagdad? Small groups can accomplish a lot of terrorism, but taking territory is a different matter. We are flirting with going to war with the entire Shiite world, and probably the bulk of the rest of Islam as well. That's what happens if we bomb the mosque in Najaf. We are also making the position of the Islamic moderates like Sistani impossible to sustain.

The most surprising thing about this war is how revealing it is!

As some of you may know, I see the current American actions in the world to be the, "New and Improved," version of WWII which I think was merely a dry-run for the current age.

The thing I am most surprised by, (and in retrospect, should not have been), is just how incompetent the U.S. military forces are. Before 9-11 manifested, I was expecting the following. . .

1. Manufacture some BS excuse to invade the Middle East.

2. Walk into Semitic country and lock everything down with speed and unquestionable military precision.

3. Set up camps and kill everybody of Semitic Blood.

4. Repeat as necessary.

The thing I was not expecting was for the American forces to make such an incredible mess of things. Well, on the day of the invasion, that Iraq was going to be another Viet Nam was becoming very clear, but a couple of years earlier, I was really expecting the U.S. to be an effective army rather than the bumbling maroon-squad it has proven to be. --Though, it now makes a lot of sense as to why things are not working smoothly. . .

Part of the problem I had previously was that it seemed really unlikely that the average American could ever be brought to a place where he was willing to rape a country and kill people simply because of genetic and cultural differences. I didn't see enough insanity and hate.

Well! That has certainly changed quickly enough. Genocide is no longer the unthinkable. The average shell-shocked American troop is scared to death and fed up. "If it has brown skin, kill it." Rational thought is a luxry when the brain is running on adrenaline, fear, frustration and zero sleep.

Meanwhile, all the chaos and confusion drive the perceived need back home for greater controls implemented on 'Homeland' soil. In the Middle East, Chaos serves best; the Fog Of War is a great place to do whatever you damned well please, kill whoever you want, and feed, feed, feed! Whereas a lock-down is what is 'needed' on American soil to prevent anybody from putting a spanner in the works. And the machine runs along nicely.

And the Journalists and the Left and Right argue and debate as though any of their words mean a damned thing, which they do not. --The Great Killing Machine planned for that as well; gotta keep the public occupied while it gets the job done. Processing a few billion people into the sausage machine isn't the sort of thing you can do without soothing radio music, bill-board advertising and games for the kids in the back seat.

The thing which now surprises me is that we have not seen more 'terrorist' attacks on American soil. I was expecting more of those to keep things stirred up. But then, I suppose, the American public are already under tight enough control. It's not like there are any protests going on in the streets, are there? People are so bloody asleep, it's creepy. The youth and student populations are practically drooling zombies with very little awareness of the greater world. Must be all that pizza, beer and cell phone technology making them dull. And the anti-depressants one fifth of people seem to be on these days. Not a single damned anti-war protest to be seen on any campus, anywhere! (There must be different ways of getting laid nowadays.)

Ooooh. That's cynical. Sorry.

Ah well. I guess all one can really do is sit back and watch how it all unfolds.

Then you might want to do what your Kurdish countrymen in the north did long ago - come out of hiding, pick up the family AK-47 and help the Americans plug a few of the small number of assholes trying to enslave you.

Freedom never comes for free. Democracies are never formed perfectly. They tend to evolve from sloppy, bloody affairs. And the pain continues. The most powerful woman in the world said yesterday - "When the founding fathers of this country said 'We the People,' they didn't mean me." We Americans realize that we are still learning how to run a democracy. That learning is always painful.

Yet today we have IGC members bitching about the imperfect way that Americans are dying as they try to keep your country from falling into the hands of some of the most depraved and stupid elements of your society. We also have learned that Iraqi Civil Defense personnel suckered the 4 Americans into their ambush and mutilation at Fallujah. We also remember stupid, whining voices like those of Salam Pax talking about Bush "spilling tomato juice" on the Iraqi carpet and having to clean it up.

To those of you who lack the spine to fight for your future;
To those of you who prefer foreigners to do the dirty work while you complain about it;
To those of you who express concern that Americans may "abandon you" while you show no willingness to stick your neck out and help the Americans - I say this:

Fuck You.

The "rebels" among you aren't rebels at all. Be it the Fallujans or the Shiite radicals, they all oppose any discussion whatsoever of a prosperous, peaceful and egalitarian future. Their future stretches back to the infinite past of a strong minority enslaving a weak majority.

Saddam represented a strong minority. You obeyed, yet longed for his removal.

Al Sadr represents a strong minority - few Shiites followed him prior to his little rebellion.

Bitch all you want about Americans - after all, it is all the fashion in Europes capitals. Just remember that the fashion in almost all of the Middle Eastern capitals is tyranny. You, my dear friends in Iraq, are not Europeans - you are Middle Easterners. Democracy is quite the threat to your neighbors.

As for Americans, we won't leave without kicking a hell of a lot of asses first, but we may just leave the same. It would actually work out well for us if someone like an al Sadr (not him of course, he has only a few days left to live) took over. Allied with Tehran, the temptation to take the holy cities from the Saud family would be overwhelming. It isn't like Islamic history isn't filled with different factions laying siege on Mecca and Medina and then trying to dominate Islam from there.

For the US, it would be like the Iran-Iraq war. Remember that episode in your history? Iran's radicals threw themselves into your machine guns and gas clouds, dying by the ton. The result is that Iran's population is now dominated by youth bent on a change - they don't want the Mullahs ordering them around. Your Shiite youth seem to want the Mullahs to order them around and fight on their behalf. Your south is an inviting source of fighters for your neighbor to the east.

Such people could be used to kill Americans - or they could turn on softer targets. First target would be you - the average Iraqi citizen. You will pray at gunpoint. You will send your sons to fight their wars. It will not end for a generation. Why? Because if democracy can't take hold in Iraq, the US's next option is to set Iran's mullahs against the Saudis. We love neither of them. We know who bombed us in Beirut. We know who runs Al Qaeda. And if you fuck us now, we won't love you either - after all, we tried to save your asses.

An Iraq allied with Iran will host the battlefield of the next Middle Eastern war. Not a war with precision weapons - a war of siege and of suffering like you have yet to witness. A holy war - a final showdown between the two rival factions of Islam over its greatest treasure. The theocrats will sell cheap oil to pay for this war, and will do any deal with the west to buy western weapons.

Do you see your future? Which one is it? Your future, like it or not, is in your hands. Complex, difficult democracy or simple, bloody tyranny.

He should IMHO start using metaphors and rhetoric to suggest to the public that the occupiers are just another international wishy washy peacekeeping force along the lines of "well, our humanitarian mission is going to pot and we may have to retreat, but it is no longer a high priority in the terror war because their president whats-his-name is gone and it is time to look at the domestic agenda and stuff".

---

I'm not in denial, I'm just selective about the reality I choose to accept.

-Calvin and Hobbes

(Currently I live in Rome and speak Italian)

Anyways, the real point is-- bravo!

A good "black sheep wall" or "iseedeadpeople" ought to be good enough. "On screen" or "Sally shears" if you're oldschool...