Those Lazy Iraqis -- I find this argument revolting

[dorkulon]

After watching the Dems spend another Sunday morning ignorantly excoriating the Iraqis for not "making the hard choices," I feel like moving to New Zealand. Not only that, but Reid saying that "all three" Groups in Iraq are attacking us, when the Kurds have made hardly a peep.

I posted this piece a few weeks ago, but it's still the best assessment of the "lazy Iraqis" meme I've seen.

I'd like to know how other DUers feel about Dems blaming the Iraqis for the problems there, rather than placing the responsibility where it belongs--on the Bush administration primarily, and the obsequious press and shit-scared 2002 congress secondarily.

[Nite Owl]

1. In total agreement with you

I find it absolutely disgusting when they start on that line of blaming the Iraqi's for not doing as they are told. Like everything would be just fine if it wasn't for their not making the 'hard decisions'. It's wrong, just wrong.

[Vincardog]

2. If that is what they have to do in order to GTFO I don't care. Small men have small face to save.

[dorkulon]

6. I don't feel like voting for "small men."

Or small women for that matter.

[Vincardog]

24. Neither do I. Are you offering any choices in the primaries?

[dorkulon]

41. Kucinich?

Yeah, I know... "he can't win."

[Vincardog]

65. I will give him money the next time I have any.

[walldude]

3. Yeah, those lazy bastards should be grateful

that we only toppled their dictator and blew half their country back to the stone age. They should be thankful that they can't go outside without worrying about getting blown up or shot. What is with these people anyway. You go to all this trouble to destroy their infrastructure and steal their oil and the ungrateful wretches refuse to make "hard choices". Not only that but didn't Malaki say last week that we could leave whenever we wanted? Talk about ungrateful, now they just want to kick us out after all we've done for them.

American political discussion has crossed the bridge to a weird M.C.Escher reality where all the staircases go up, and they all go down and they all go in a circle, all at the same time.... I know I left my passport laying around here somewhere..

[TahitiNut]

4. Of course. It's all their fault we invaded and occupied their country.

So it MUST be their fault if we leave, right? Of course. :crazy:

:puke:

[VTMechEngr]

23. Well... If they actively fight us to make us leave...

Then yeah, I'd say that in that case, it is their fault that we leave and their country possibly falls into further chaos.

It isn't great to think about, but if they didn't fight us to force us out, things would be a lot better for them. Its a shame we invaded in the first place, but that simple truth remains.

[TahitiNut]

25. "Just lay back and enjoy it"??

Where have I heard that before? :eyes:

[VTMechEngr]

26. Rape Insinuation Aside

What do you want? We invaded, its a fucking done deal. We don't have a time machine to undo the invasion. The fact is they are fighting us, and hurting themselves in the process.

I'm just looking at it from my perspective, a man with many friends serving the armed forces in a country that seems to applaud when they die. If the Iraqis wanted a better life, they blew the chance. Forget the comments about the invasion, after the invasion, they had a choice, they made it, and they now reap the consequences, as do we.

They can't have it both ways - If They fight to push us out, then they get what they get. They had a choice, follow our ideas to democratize, and we would "rebuild" (cynical comments understood) their country, or they could fight us and push us out. If we get pushed out, let them celebrate and what happens to them happens to them. That was their choice!

[TahitiNut]

30. See ...

Kucinich follows part, but not all, of the Network of Spiritual Progressives' plan.

(Editor's Note: Dennis Kucinich has taken into account many of the aspects of the NSP plan to end the war. What is missing?

1. A challenge to the fundamental way of thinking that led in this direction: The Strategy of Domination; and hence, no call for a new Strategy of Generosity.
2. A call for a Global Marshall Plan. Without that, the Left simply seems to be calling for U.S. withdrawal from the world rather than a new way of engagement with it.
3. A call for public repentance and atonement on the part of the U.S. for having pursued this kind of war and the thinking behind it. It was the absence of this kind of thinking that made it possible for the U.S. to repeat its errors in Vietnam only 29 years later.

Kucinich's plan, nevertheless, has the kind of detail that is very important for advancing the public debate, were the media willing to report on it as opposed to simply reporting on "the horse race" of who is ahead in the presidential primaries. Unfortunately, it isn't, which is why it is still important to donate monies to fund our ad at www.tikkun.org/iraqpeace because getting a coherent message of what can happen to end the war can only get into the mass media when we pay for it to be there.)


The Plan to End the Iraq War

In consultation with senior UN advisors with expertise in international peace-keeping and security missions, military experts, and principals of the international political community, Dennis Kucinich has crafted HR 1234, the plan that will end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, make Halliburton and all contractors come home, and stabilize Iraq with an international peace-keeping and security force.

HR 1234 will restore Iraq's sovereignty over its oil, control its food and energy prices, and protect its financial integrity by ensuring Iraq will not be the target of World Bank and IMF structural adjustment policies.

These are the elements of the Kucinich 12-Point Plan for Iraq:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Baghdad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an ever-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peacekeeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties. Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority, fear they will not be allowed to govern even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

12. International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq. In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world.

http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=20070612065144103

[VTMechEngr]

32. How can we rebuild Iraq?

They will destroy anything we fund. We just need to leave.

[TahitiNut]

33. Should I just repeat the post above?

:shrug: It does little good to respond if the reply isn't read.

[VTMechEngr]

34. I read it, I just don't believe it.

An international force acceptable to the Iraqis, a Global rebuilding plan? Come on.

[personman]

61. "If the Iraqis wanted a better life, they blew the chance."

As if they had a chance.

"Forget the comments about the invasion, after the invasion, they had a choice, they made it, and they now reap the consequences, as do we."

Yes it's that simple...the Iraqis all got together...all however many million and said "hey, do you think we should accept freedom, prosperity and democracy? or all start killing eachother and drive our great american saviors out?"... The truth, whether you like it or not, is everything going over there is a direct result of our choice to invade...WE had a choice...they are paying for OUR choice, as are we. THEY did not have a choice. We invade, smash the country, destroy the infrastructure, kill a million or so of 'em and go "WTF...lazy Iraqis can't get their shit together..."

This whole line of reasoning is completely degrading and dehumanizing to the Iraqi people, like they are ignorant children who just can't behave for Daddy America.

People like you are why the middle east hates us, why they hit us before, and why they'll hit us again. You are also excellent proof that the democrats are NOT the solution... I know many DUers don't think like you (or I probably wouldn't even be here), but I'd wager many "D"s in Washington do...

"They can't have it both ways - If They fight to push us out, then they get what they get. They had a choice, follow our ideas to democratize, and we would "rebuild" (cynical comments understood) their country, or they could fight us and push us out. If we get pushed out, let them celebrate and what happens to them happens to them. That was their choice!"

Blows my mind, what people will try to justify...

[WinkyDink]

28. Say what?? Even in the days when Romans brought cities and plumbing

and streets, NOBODY wanted to be CONQUERED!!!

And they STILL DON'T.

What about the fact it is "us" they are fighting, as in "outsiders", "foreign occupiers", "illegal invaders", and "would-be thieves of Iraqi oil", don't you understand?

[VTMechEngr]

31. The Romans made the conquered lands Roman.

We didn't annex Iraq into the USA. (we just wanted a friendly gov't and the oil fields)

Second, the bodies in Baghdad each morning, the militias, etc are not foreign fighters. The Bush Admin just wants you to believe that to support his War on Terror BS.

[personman]

59. The invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression

We had no right to invade in the first place, they have every right to resist. If we're interested at all in justice we would be talking about paying them enormous reparations for all we've done to them, and thanking them for their patience and understanding (especially in light of our own lack of them.)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dorkulon]

8. Oh, is that what we've been doing?

Funny, I thought by firing their army, allowing terrorists to spill across their borders, and leaving them with no security and no infrastructure, "free governance" sounded like a bit of a longshot at the time.

Sorry, but I find your "casual observation" that Iraqis were "content" with Saddam to be of a piece with the astounding, ignorant arrogance I referred to in the OP. Could it be that only the "ex-pat thugs" were vocal because they weren't risking death by criticizing Saddam? I'm not arguing we should stay in Iraq, but your "facts" are suspect at best.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dorkulon]

15. "savages" -- I'm done with you.

what do you think America would look like if there were no police? And no jobs? And no electricity? And no clean water?

Never mind. I'm sure the great White civilization wouldn't behave so undecorously.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VTMechEngr]

29. He sounds disillusioned

Much as I am.

[dorkulon]

35. Sound plenty 'illusioned' to me.

Embracing every popular lie this country tells itself about this immoral, lunkheaded invasion. I agree with you on one thing though: we should get out. I think you'll find the idea that our presence there is preventing worse catastrophe will prove to be yet another illusion.

As far as Iraqi 'ungratefulness,' try to imagine how grateful you'd be if another country occupied yours.

[VTMechEngr]

37. My take.

I never wanted the invasion, but it happened.

I have several friends who have been nearly killed on several occasions serving over there. At this point, I just want us to leave, and I frankly don't give a damn what happens to the Iraqi people. They can decide their future.

I do not support reparations. You and I didn't support this war, but the following inflation and fallout will hurt us badly just like after Vietnam. We (nation) ranked up a lot of debt from this conflict. We don't need to send even more money away.

Heartless indeed, but thats a trade mark of disillusionment.

[dorkulon]

38. Fine.

No reparations--as long as we let them have their oil (yeah, that's gonna happen). And as bad as you may feel about your friends, don't lose sight of the fact that nearly a million Iraqis have been killed. Those are people too. There's a difference between "disillusioned" and "self-absorbed."

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dorkulon]

64. Sorry, but when you

call Iraqis "savages" with no "inner goodness," your asinine attitude does become the issue. I certainly don't think the US gov't is going to make it right, and I don't know how you got that impression. But it might help if you knew something about that country's history. The fact is Iraq was set up for failure when the English decided to make a country containing three disparate fragments of larger nations. In fact, all of the countries in that region were arbitrarily drawn on a map by the French and English after WWI, with little regard for existing cultural borders.

I'm not saying everyone in the middle east is wonderful and peace-loving. The point of this thread is that it is ridiculous for you or anyone to blame the situation in Iraq--a situation that is a direct result of an ill-informed, unnecessary invasion by the USA--on the Iraqis. You, however don't seem to be able to understand that. And the insults started with you, friend.

[eridani]

55. If you ever develop a severe migraine headache--

--do you want your doctor to cure you by chopping off your head? That's what we've done to Iraq.

[EFerrari]

57. We've been screwing them over for nearly forty years. n/t

[bigtree]

7. I tthink you're misrepresenting their argument

It's the administration that's using these political 'benchmarks' as an excuse to keep our troops there. They're supposed to make 'room' for the Iraqis to achieve these. That's also the excuse the Iraqi regime uses for their insistence that our soldiers stay and defend them. It just makes sense to point out that, in actuality, for whatever reason, the Iraqi parliament has no intention on following through on any of the political measures BUSH insists are necessary before we withdrawal.

[dorkulon]

9. Dick Durbin, this AM:

"DURBIN: The key to the Iraqis' future are the Iraqi people and their leaders. They have to step up, decide to make the important political decisions, which they've postponed and avoided. They have to step up and defend their own country."

Sorry, but that doesn't sound like what you're saying.

[bigtree]

11. They do have to step up and defend their own country

we can't do it for them. They key to their future is 'themselves,' not the U.S. There's no reason why our troops should stay in place waiting for that to happen

That's what I hear in that, combined with what Durbin strenuously argued in the last Iraq debate.

[dorkulon]

12. The fallacy here is the idea that the Iraqi gov't

can make decisions that the majority of Iraqis are against. They aren't sufficiently anesthetized, as we are, to put up with that. In other words, if Maliki tries to arrest Moqtada al-Sadr, for instance, his parliament will no doubt be stormed and burned within days. If the parliament votes for the Hydrocarbon law, which is exploitative (and shows us the real reason for the invasion), the people will rebel against it. Blaming these things on the Iraqi gov't is simplistic and convenient.

[bigtree]

19. I really think he's saying the same thing.

It's unreasonable to expect them to live up to the U.S. expectations. I don't know how anyone could read anything else in that, given Durbin's stance on the occupation. It's a way to highlight the inanity of Bush's argument.

[kitty44]

10. Give em a chance

Prior to our invasion, Iraq had some of the highest literacy rates in the ME.

We have indeed bombed them back to the stone age - all for our own self interests.

We owe them a LOT.

First, we need to leave immediately.

Then we, should pay reparations to Iraqis and let their own leaders (not the ones we put in place) figure out next steps. We need to help them nationalize their oil and make sure U.S contractors are OUT OF THERE.

it may take them a few years, but they'll get on their feet.

Who knows - they may just elect their own Hugo Chavez....

[Bluerthanblue]

14. welcome Kitty44!!! and

I agree with you:hi:

Very well said!

peace,
blu

[TahitiNut]

53. Excellent 1st post. Welcome!

I tend to think posts are excellent when they say things with which I fully agree. :silly:

[eridani]

56. Unfortunately, the various ethnic and sectarian factions-

--all have their own idea what a Hugo Chavez analog ought to look like. We should probably get an international agency with some street cred to handle the reparations thing and make sure all the major groups get something.

[leftchick]

16. blaming the Victim is Always Despicable!

Thank you for expressing my disgust very well!

[NanceGreggs]

18. Thanks for the inspiration, dorkulon!

Your post inspired this little rant:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3393623

I hope you enjoy it it ...

[dorkulon]

21. Well done, Nance.

I did indeed enjoy it.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Thanks again for the inspiration!

Needless to say, I agree with your OP one thousand percent.

I find it absolutely appalling that some Dems have joined in the blame the Iraqis bullshit.

There's nothing like hearing someone whose got EVERYTHING - two or three houses, expensive cars, a cushy lifestyle, and personal wealth - telling people who have NOTHING to get their act together.

Absolutely shameful - and the Dems should KNOW BETTER than to shift the blame from BushCo and put it on the people BushCo set about to destroy.

Shameful.

[WinkyDink]

27. WE INVADED and SLAUGHTERED and DESTROYED, but it's the IRAQIS we blame

now for not "meeting benchmarks"?!

For this alone I cannot support HRC.

[RFKJr4PRES]

36. I agree

It is absolutely disgusting that after everything we have done, we would actually blame the Iraqis. Any Democrat that perpetuates this line of 'reasoning' has a special place in hell. They also happen to be the same 'Democrats' that pretend that Iran is a threat.

Hey Hillary(and others)
THE IRAQIS ASKED US TO LEAVE- THEY WANT US OUT TWO YEARS AGO! (okay like 4 years ago)

bringing Democracy my ass!

[ConsAreLiars]

39. The Most Vile Talking Point: "It's time for Iraqis to stand up on their own"

Every time I hear "Democratic" Party representatives repeat this phrase, I loathe them even more for their complicity in the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq and/or their unwillingness to tell the truth about what has been done to the people of Iraq and The US (and the planet).

Oh, I get the Rovian "brilliance" of the phrasing. It implies that the US invaded in order to give a "helping hand" and that has been now done. And it covers the asses of the Imperialist backers of the PNAC agenda, so the Dems won't risk get trashed by Big Money. And it appeals to the most xenophobic elements of The Masses who regard all foreigners as less than human, as well as those who just want to stop US participation in the butchery. So it sells well.

Yes, it's long past time to get out of a war that was started for the most evil of reasons, but this blaming of the Iraqis for having had their society destroyed disgusts me.

There is the Big Lie, and then there are the little lies that give credence to the Big Lie. Will they ever have the decency to tell the truth, or will they just keep "playing the game" and pretending that the massacre of Iraqis was just "good intentions gone bad."

---

The above is a cut and paste of a thread I posted last November -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2807356

My feelings are the same, and my disgust with the liars who mouth this crap is even deeper.

We deserve a leadership in what claims to be "our" party that will tell the truth, that this was a vicious and totally immoral war launched by a gang of criminals to increase the wealth and power of KKKorporatism though mass murder. They might use more delicate language, but if that is not what they say, then they do NOT speak for me.

TahitiNut's post #30 above is the only possible way for us to reclaim our status of an at least nominally decent nation and begin to mitigate some of the damage that has been done and will continue to follow. Blaming the Iraqi's only perpetuates the Big Lie.

(In short, thanks, dorkulon, for posting those words.)

[dorkulon]

40. My pleasure, so to speak

It's good to see not everyone is choosing the psychological escape of displaced blame. I suggest you read the link in the OP; it's pretty dead-on IMHO.

[Disturbed]

42. Repugs and Dems are starting to agree about Iraq.

It's the Iraq Govt's fault that things are in chaos and that there is no Oil Agreement that gives Western Oil Corps. 80% of Iraqi Oil profits. It's a simple lie that gives both parties a shift of the blame that they & the Busholini Regime should claim but never will.

[VTMechEngr]

43. If blaming the Iraqis gets us out, is it so bad? n/t

[dorkulon]

44. Oh, I don't know...

Is self-serving dishonesty "bad?"

Would it be harder to get out if we just admitted we screwed up horribly?

[VTMechEngr]

46. I was trying to be realistic.

You know that would never happen.

[dorkulon]

47. Touche.

I must admit, to my chagrin, you are correct, sir.

[ConsAreLiars]

45. I thought you advocated keeping on murdering them until they capitulate n/t

[VTMechEngr]

48. No. The war would just go on and on.

I've always wanted us to leave. Its just that we won't leave.

I advocate whatever gets our troops out of that hellhole.

I'm not a right-winger, and I don't appreciate the insinuation.

[ConsAreLiars]

49. Right, I misread your reasoning.

You merely claimed that it's their fault that when "we" invade, bomb and kill them they fight back and thus get murdered and butchered more. Blaming the Iraqis is a way to continue the attempt at conquest, not a way to end it. Those who use that talking point also talk about a "continued presence" as if a re-configured form of military domination of that region will be more effective, rather than denouncing the goal.

The pro-war votes by Dems prove that you don't have to be a self-identified right-winger to be wrong, and I made no claim that you were a right-winger, just wrong to blame the Iraqis for the mass slaughter and destruction done to them.

[personman]

63. Perpetuating the devaluazation and dehumanization of a people is bad.

Was 911 not a big enough warning shot?

[glitch]

51. It's despicable. You aren't the only one that's offended. nt

[dorkulon]

66. Good to know. (nt)

[autorank]

52. ..."revolting" yes, but not shocking from colonialists. K*R

How pathetic the public dialog on Iraq is.

In summary:

Pro War: Was a good idea!
Anti War: Was not, didn't work!
Pro War: Did too!
Ant Wari: Did not!
Pro War: War is a good idea!
Anti War: War is a good idea sometimes!
Pro War: Iraqi's are lazy!
Anti War: Iraqi's are lazy!

PATHETIC

[tuvor]

54. This cartoon pretty much sums it up for me.

[dorkulon]

58. Hehe. (nt)

[Solly Mack]

60. it's cowardly and criminal

it legitimizes the lies of Bush Inc..

If it's the Iraqis fault then we can gloss over HOW we got into Iraq and pretend America's intentions were good...

and I've said this from the very first time that craven talking point was uttered

[personman]

62. Here's a question...what would we do to Iraq if they killed a million of us?

We're still flipped out about the 2,500 from 911... (and far less flipped out about the poorer, darker, similar sized number that used to be in New Orleans)