can we go home now?

[bishop]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Several thousand protesters gathered Saturday in Baghdad to urge the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as well as to call for national unity and denounce terrorism. The marchers condemned President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and ex-dictator Saddam Hussein, and some protesters gave the trio the pun name of "triangle of death" -- the same as the nickname for a volatile region south of the capital.

so, should we just ignore them and take the "we're going to stay to run your country. it's for your own good!" approach?

[Ken Carman]

"...so, should we just ignore them and take the 'we're going to stay to run your country. it's for your own good!' approach?"

Should we? No. Will we? Unfortunately, yes. It's a little like forcing food into the body of a woman with liquid for cortex. People who claim to be making their own reality are making poisonous fantasy. She was already gone, the conquest of Iraq is a failure... but Dr. Frankenstein still tries to reanimate the rotting corpse.

[Gorgo]

Again, "WE" aren't doing anything. The band of criminals that decided invading another country is good sport are continuing their little adventure, and you and I don't have much to say about it.

Quote by: bishop so, should we just ignore them and take the "we're going to stay to run your country. it's for your own good!" approach?

[Rainbow]

The marchers condemned President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and ex-dictator Saddam Hussein, and some protesters gave the trio the pun name of "triangle of death" -- the same as the nickname for a volatile region south of the capital.

Those "marchers" are al-Sadr's supporters.
It seem that this man wants to resurect pro-Islamic archaisms with all the dogmas as the Iraq's main political structure.
As a matter of fact, there is a warrant - still into effect - so, it would not surprize me, if that man ends up dead, one day.

[Lilith]

We need to come home. Let the Iraqis run thier own country. This continued war seems really pointless to me. But who am I? Nobody really....

[dotcoma]

You guys are hillarious. How do you know this group of people represents the majority of Iraq? The majority likely wants stability and a functional army before we leave lol.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: dotcoma You guys are hillarious. How do you know this group of people represents the majority of Iraq? The majority likely wants stability and a functional army before we leave lol.

Is that why they, the majority, voted for ali-Sistani's party, who ran on a platform supporting the withdrawal of US troops?

[dotcoma]

Is that why they voted in the first place? They may want us out eventually, but democratization is not complete. It's amazing how short-sighted, impatient, and reactionary the pull-out crowd is. Reforming a country from the ground-up takes time.

I'd rather see the US troops unpopular initially and have them do the job right, rather than a popularity contest that results in us pulling out, the country turning to terror and anti-US scapegoats, and the whole mission being in vain.

[Gorgo]

If I rob a bank, and take some hostages, are you going to insist I stay afterwards to maintain stability and help them run their bank?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: dotcoma Is that why they voted in the first place? They may want us out eventually, but democratization is not complete. It's amazing how short-sighted, impatient, and reactionary the pull-out crowd is. Reforming a country from the ground-up takes time. I'd rather see the US troops unpopular initially and have them do the job right, rather than a popularity contest that results in us pulling out, the country turning to terror and anti-US scapegoats, and the whole mission being in vain.

It's not up to you, it's the choice of the Iraqi people, and their representatives. If they ask you to leave, you should damn well do it. If you refuse, it's a clear demonstration of neo-colonialism.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: G. Adams It's not up to you, it's the choice of the Iraqi people, and their representatives. If they ask you to leave, you should damn well do it. If you refuse, it's a clear demonstration of neo-colonialism.

Noe-colonialism ?
al-Sadr "orchestrated" those marches.
That man is in a clear opposition not only to U.S. - led coalition, but additionally to Sistani as well, who could have been said that he (Sistani) represents majority of Iraqi people, instead.

[Livemike]

Quote by: dotcoma Is that why they voted in the first place?

No they did that because otherwise the US-backed government would have cut off
their food ration.

Quote by: dotcoma They may want us out eventually, but democratization is not complete. It's amazing how short-sighted, impatient, and reactionary the pull-out crowd is. Reforming a country from the ground-up takes time.

Far less short sighted than those that think a democratic Iraq will be friendly to the
US. Sistani seems to have won most of the votes and he's radically anti-american
(far more so than al-Sadr who was at least anti-Iranian).

Quote by: dotcoma I'd rather see the US troops unpopular initially and have them do the job right, rather than a popularity contest that results in us pulling out, the country turning to terror and anti-US scapegoats, and the whole mission being in vain.

The whole misson is going to be in vain anyway. There is no possibility of a stable
pro-US regime in that part of the world while Israel continues to brutalise the
Palestinians and the US continues to act like Sharon's bitch. All continued US occupation of Iraq does is make the Iraqis hate the US more and ruin the US economy.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Rainbow Noe-colonialism ? al-Sadr "orchestrated" those marches. That man is in a clear opposition not only to U.S. - led coalition, but additionally to Sistani as well, who could have been said that he (Sistani) represents majority of Iraqi people, instead.

I could not agree more. The assumption that these demonstrations are popular is funny.

Quote by: Livemike No they did that because otherwise the US-backed government would have cut off their food ration.

WHAT?! LOL..so people voted in fear of US retaliation lol...right....

They risked their lives to vote because they had not been given the chance to do so for decades.

Quote by: Livemike Far less short sighted than those that think a democratic Iraq will be friendly to the US. Sistani seems to have won most of the votes and he's radically anti-american (far more so than al-Sadr who was at least anti-Iranian).

Another wild assumption. How do you know how a democratic Iraq will be? Can you even name once democracy that has fought with another democracy? I bet you can't. The goal of democratization is a wise one because of the impedence it creates for terrorists, and hawks who want conflict.

Quote by: Livemike The whole misson is going to be in vain anyway. There is no possibility of a stable pro-US regime in that part of the world while Israel continues to brutalise the Palestinians and the US continues to act like Sharon's bitch. All continued US occupation of Iraq does is make the Iraqis hate the US more and ruin the US economy.

Did Bush not tell Sharon to not build those new settlements? I could have sworn he did lol. Please stop assuming more and more. I bet you thought nobody would vote either, but conceded after that slapped you in the face.

Oh and G Adams, sorry but it's naive to think that the Iraqis decide if the Americans leave or stay. Their stability is not just for them, but for the entire region as well. By imposing measures that encourage economic development, and governmental contestation we create a country that is better in the long-run for its people, and for us.

If we pull out now we leave a country agitated, defenseless, and in need of a hero to save them from their misery (i.e. terrorists).

[Gorgo]

Can you name one democracy?

The United States has been an enemy of democracy for many years. See the history of Latin America and Haiti.

Quote by: dotcoma Can you even name once democracy that has fought with another democracy?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Rainbow Noe-colonialism ? al-Sadr "orchestrated" those marches. That man is in a clear opposition not only to U.S. - led coalition, but additionally to Sistani as well, who could have been said that he (Sistani) represents majority of Iraqi people, instead.

Neo-colonialism, the newer brand of colonialism, whereby the parent imperial power controls foreign countries by coercion, rather than direct governorship.

Just because the marchers were organised by al-Sadr doesn't mean the sentiment is worthless. In the UK the anti-war group that organised it, the Stop The War Coalition, has a large contingent of Socialist Workers Party people within it, yet that fact doesn't mean the general populace, who don't support the SWP, didn't support that particular cause.

Quote by: dotcoma Oh and G Adams, sorry but it's naive to think that the Iraqis decide if the Americans leave or stay. Their stability is not just for them, but for the entire region as well. By imposing measures that encourage economic development, and governmental contestation we create a country that is better in the long-run for its people, and for us.

I'm not being naive, I know that the decision "will" be taken in Washington, I was suggesting the decision "should" be taken by the Iraqi's. I was making a normative statement, not a descriptive one, please attempt to distinguish in future.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Gorgo Can you name one democracy? The United States has been an enemy of democracy for many years. See the history of Latin America and Haiti.

Oh god, I am not going to quibble with you over what in your mind suffices as a true democracy. The fact remains, democracies do not fight other one's, so this may be a step in the right direction.

[Matt W]

democracies do not fight other one's,

Hmmm...Turkey & Greece...the ancient Greek Cities...India & Pakistan....and who knows how many little scraps in South America?

Certainly, the US looks like a pretty belligerent democracy to me...

[Rainbow]

Quote by: G. Adams Neo-colonialism, the newer brand of colonialism, whereby the parent imperial power controls foreign countries by coercion, rather than direct governorship. Just because the marchers were organised by al-Sadr doesn't mean the sentiment is worthless. In the UK the anti-war group that organised it, the Stop The War Coalition, has a large contingent of Socialist Workers Party people within it, yet that fact doesn't mean the general populace, who don't support the SWP, didn't support that particular cause.

#1
I am not sure the purpose of that sentence.
#2
Yes, it is just because al-Sadr organized those marches.
The name is meaningless, but the political agenda he represents.

Off Topic
What Socialist Workers Party has in common with al-Sadr and/or his activity ?

[Matt W]

Rainbow:- You asked about neo-colonialism, G.Adams provided you with a definition.

You are obviously missing the point- Al-Sadr may have a political agenda, but on this one point, how many Iraqis agree with him? That's why the SWP was mentioned - they are a blip on most peoples' radar, but most people in the UK agreed with their position on the war - and still do.

[Gorgo]

If all you read is State Department handouts, yes, I guess I'd think that too.

Quote by: dotcoma Oh god, I am not going to quibble with you over what in your mind suffices as a true democracy. The fact remains, democracies do not fight other one's, so this may be a step in the right direction.