you blame american slaves who did not rebel every day under slavery and iraqis who did not rebel every day under Hussein? but if they do rebel violently, you condemn that too? this leaves only saintly nonviolent resistance as an option. I agree that would be best. But look at how high your standards are. You cannot even recognize as self-defense regrettable violence that is self-defense. (Unless it's American; you don't condemn the American revolution).
But let's look at what you have to say of slave owners and imperialists. Your standards seem a wee bit lower. You defend slavery as better than murder and say not one negative word about it. you pretend that an occupying army that most Iraqis remaining alive believe has made their lives worse than under Hussein is made up of women and children.
Who aided Iraq in its war on Iran? Who installed your ruthless dictator and propped him up for years? You and I, my friend, were complicit.
for some people enlightenment comes late - maybe 300 years?
<b>DONLAN REPLIED:</b>
I am only blaming the Iraqis for not overthrowing Hussein.
You conflate massacre of all whites with rebellion against slave owners and call both "violence." There are gradations, and some types of violence are worse than others. And yes, being a slave is bad but it isn't as bad as being a murder victim.
If you are willing to believe that most Iraqis preferred Hussein to the current government, wouldn't you have to admit that Iraq would be a better place if the so-called rebels quit rebelling and lived quietly under the current government. Which would also have the result that U.S. troops would leave.
The occupying army isn't made up of women and children; the people being blown up in marketplaces include women and children.
The U.S. may have aided Iraq, but it did not start the war or put Hussein on the throne. Our degree of complicity in his crimes is minor.
Whom will you blame for the millions to be killed in the Iraq civil war after the U.S. troops leave?
<b>SWANSON REPLIED:</b>
You actually believe that if the Iraqis all lay down and accepted the occupation and its puppet government, the occupation would leave? You actually imagine that we've built all those permanent military bases in Iraq just for kicks? You actually seriously honest to god think that this is all about getting the barbarians to behave and not about stealing their oil and using their nation as a launching pad to invade others? You serioiusly suppose that Bush and Cheney and gang would trust the Iraqis to keep giving US companies their oil, and just bring all the occupying troops home?
And you are an editor at a major publication?
This, I think, is what's wrong with our educational and communications system in this country.
The only scientific estimate of the Iraqis dead as a result of the invasion and occupation is slightly over a million. That's above and beyond the high death rate under sanctions and bombings pre-invasion. And the death rate is twice this year what it was last year. Another 4 million Iraqis have been displaced, half of them out of the country. We know with as much certainty as can be had that things will continue to go from bad to worse as long as the occupation continues. If it ends, in the short term things may be better or worse, but Iraq will have a chance. And I will place blame on any Iraqis not practicing nonviolence and on any non-Iraqi governments in the wealthy part of the world not providing financial aid and supporting UN peacekeeping efforts, especially the nation responsible for destroying the nation of Iraq and especially the nation of which I happen to be a citizen.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
