Originally posted by loseyourname
To state that the occupation would not be there if it were not for the insurgents is a naive and simplistic rendering of the events that have unfolded in that region. After a decade of American and British backed UN sanctions that killed thousands of children each month, do you think these people have any confusions as to what America stands for? And the recent atrocities from the bombings of 'Shock and Awe' to Abu Ghraib, to Fallujah all reinforce these peoples initial reactions of America being a force of destruction, not liberation, contrary to what the Orwellian words carefully concocted by the masters in Washington would have you believe.
There would be no need for occupation had Bush not lied to America about going to war to oust Saddam who was no threat to America. There is no question that Iraq was better off with Saddam, than it is now. The people in Iraq even know this. Iraq is in a terrible condition, its society has been torn apart, scores of thousands have been killed and even more wounded, its infrastructure has been shattered, a power vacuum for warlords has been created.
"Staying the course" means continuing the fighting. France 'stayed the course' in Algeria in the 1950s as America did in Vietnam in the 1960s and as the Israelis are now doing in occupied Palestine. It has never worked anywhere. In Algeria, the French employed over three times as many troops, nearly half a million, to fight roughly the same number of insurgents as America is now fighting in Iraq. They lost. America had half a million soldiers in Vietnam and gave up. After forty years of warfare against the Palestinians, the Israelis have achieved neither peace nor security. To you people who have any illusions about this war, it will end with another loss for America in the long run, possibly break the empire, like Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.
Comment