"We're fighting them there so, we don't have to fight them here." That's still the mantra of the right wing regarding Iraq.
But, if it is our presence in Iraq that is a magnet for combatants, then it's immoral to expect Iraqis to continue to bear the brunt of those violent expressions of resentment that are directed at the U.S.. Especially since the Bush regime seems intent on provoking even more resentment and reprisals with their approval and support of Israel's assault on Lebanese territory and infrastructure.
That's why it makes no sense for Iraq's new or future leadership to yoke their own ideology, rhetoric, or policy to the U.S. script. The Iraqis aren't responsible for the policy directions that the U.S. may undertake, but, by remaining there, we tie them to every instigation and consequence of them.
There's a lot of hubris in the Iraqi speaker's comments about U.S. butchery, but it's believable enough from his side. "We know there was a corrupt regime in Saddam, but a regime should be removed by surgery, not by butchering," he said during a speech at a United Nations.
"The U.S. occupation is butcher's work under the slogan of democracy and human rights and justice." he continued.
I know that he's exaggerated, but his rhetoric is no more inflammatory than the demonization that comes from the Bush regime as they prosecute and defend their militarism. It's not realistic, nor is it fair, to expect Iraq's successive 'leaders' to develop their political appeals out of the U.S. script.
The speaker of Iraq's parliment just didn't dress up his rhetoric for his two-faced American benefactors. That's the main reason for the criticism of his comments. Inartful maybe in the way he expressed himself, and somewhat repugnant in equating of Israel's government's actions with 'Zionism', but his statements reflect a frustration not unlike a prisoner relating to his wardens. It's not as though he didn't have cause to complain.
We did have Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz as integral partners and instigators within the Bush administration who had expressed just that type of domino strategy before, during, and after Bush's ascendence to office in their PNAC policy pronouncements, whereby the U.S. would topple the governments of Iraq, Syria, Iran for the benefit of Israel, and secure their own 'crescent' of influence to project American hegemony and power.
At any rate, the Iraqis' newfound voice of resentment comes with the freedom that the Bush regime claims they invaded Iraq and occupied their country for. It's no surprise to find so many in Washington who would deny the Iraqis that freedom of expression at the first utterance of dissent.
If we don't allow their government and leaders the freedom the Bush regime claims we invaded and occupied to bequeath to the Iraqis, they will be nothing more than a U.S. satellite. That wasn't in the bargain. It's ridiculous for some to complain about those in Iraq's government who may take a different position on the Mideast conflict have forsaken the sacrifices our troops have made to 'liberate' them. I don't remember anyone inside Iraq inviting the U.S. to attack, invade, and occupy the sovereign nation.
There is the anomaly of actions, capped off with Bush's militarism that removed the only significant check in the region on Iran's influence in Saddam, and replaced that with a weak sister in Malaki and his cohorts. However, Iraqis are to be excused if they become confused about where the U.S. interests actually lie. The Bush regime celebrated Iraq's Shiite-majority authority's ascendance to power after their staged elections.
But, now the Bush regime and their Israeli allies find themselves at war with Shiites. The prudent course would be to withdraw our country's soldiers from the Shiite's house in Iraq. Iraqis have every reason to expect the U.S. to wage their own militarism from their own territory.
If Iraq is truly sovereign, its residents deserve separation from their American wards so that they are free to represent whatever ideology or ambition that they decide is best for Iraq; rather than be compromised as they are by our every utterance and action.
But, if it is our presence in Iraq that is a magnet for combatants, then it's immoral to expect Iraqis to continue to bear the brunt of those violent expressions of resentment that are directed at the U.S.. Especially since the Bush regime seems intent on provoking even more resentment and reprisals with their approval and support of Israel's assault on Lebanese territory and infrastructure.
That's why it makes no sense for Iraq's new or future leadership to yoke their own ideology, rhetoric, or policy to the U.S. script. The Iraqis aren't responsible for the policy directions that the U.S. may undertake, but, by remaining there, we tie them to every instigation and consequence of them.
There's a lot of hubris in the Iraqi speaker's comments about U.S. butchery, but it's believable enough from his side. "We know there was a corrupt regime in Saddam, but a regime should be removed by surgery, not by butchering," he said during a speech at a United Nations.
I know that he's exaggerated, but his rhetoric is no more inflammatory than the demonization that comes from the Bush regime as they prosecute and defend their militarism. It's not realistic, nor is it fair, to expect Iraq's successive 'leaders' to develop their political appeals out of the U.S. script.
The speaker of Iraq's parliment just didn't dress up his rhetoric for his two-faced American benefactors. That's the main reason for the criticism of his comments. Inartful maybe in the way he expressed himself, and somewhat repugnant in equating of Israel's government's actions with 'Zionism', but his statements reflect a frustration not unlike a prisoner relating to his wardens. It's not as though he didn't have cause to complain.
We did have Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz as integral partners and instigators within the Bush administration who had expressed just that type of domino strategy before, during, and after Bush's ascendence to office in their PNAC policy pronouncements, whereby the U.S. would topple the governments of Iraq, Syria, Iran for the benefit of Israel, and secure their own 'crescent' of influence to project American hegemony and power.
At any rate, the Iraqis' newfound voice of resentment comes with the freedom that the Bush regime claims they invaded Iraq and occupied their country for. It's no surprise to find so many in Washington who would deny the Iraqis that freedom of expression at the first utterance of dissent.
If we don't allow their government and leaders the freedom the Bush regime claims we invaded and occupied to bequeath to the Iraqis, they will be nothing more than a U.S. satellite. That wasn't in the bargain. It's ridiculous for some to complain about those in Iraq's government who may take a different position on the Mideast conflict have forsaken the sacrifices our troops have made to 'liberate' them. I don't remember anyone inside Iraq inviting the U.S. to attack, invade, and occupy the sovereign nation.
There is the anomaly of actions, capped off with Bush's militarism that removed the only significant check in the region on Iran's influence in Saddam, and replaced that with a weak sister in Malaki and his cohorts. However, Iraqis are to be excused if they become confused about where the U.S. interests actually lie. The Bush regime celebrated Iraq's Shiite-majority authority's ascendance to power after their staged elections.
But, now the Bush regime and their Israeli allies find themselves at war with Shiites. The prudent course would be to withdraw our country's soldiers from the Shiite's house in Iraq. Iraqis have every reason to expect the U.S. to wage their own militarism from their own territory.
If Iraq is truly sovereign, its residents deserve separation from their American wards so that they are free to represent whatever ideology or ambition that they decide is best for Iraq; rather than be compromised as they are by our every utterance and action.
