Will the Iraqi people say they preferred U.S. occupation?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

Now that there is a civil war going on in Iraq, some Iraqis say that they preferred Saddaam. They say that a devil you know is better than a devil you don't. But we went in there and screwed up whatever fragile stability there was. Now there is all out civil war. It's a common tale. Some in Gaza wish for Israeli control again.

When the U.S. leaves (and I do believe we will leave as people see that we are in the midst of a civil war) I think we should be prepared for the cries of those that prefer occupation to all out chaos to be used by the pro-war crowd to keep us in our next conflict until the end of time.

Where can I find proposals on what we can do to help the Iraqi people? What can we do that does not require the sacrifice of our troops indefinitely?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Will the people of New York say they preferred 9-11?

Some say that they preferred having the WTC there. I think we should be prepared for the cries of those who say they enjoy the extra views, and that nice memorial park, and the nice little profit they're making on ground zero T-shirts.

[bryant69]

5. Ooooo good comeback

Doesn't make any sense, of course, but good comeback's don't have to make sense, necessarily.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. I agree. It doesn't make sense.

Like people are going to want people who violently attacked their country to stick around.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. No, it's common though for people to prefer stability to civil rights and freedom

Preferring one sort of oppression over another doesn't mean you want "people who attacked your country to stick around". It doesn't mean you like your occupiers, it doesn't mean you wish they would stay forever. It just means you prefer stability. And to be clear, I don't believe that most Iraqis would want us there. I think the majority have made that clear. However, that doesn't mean that a few will have their voices heard louder than the majority because it is helpful to the RW agenda.

In Gaza, some Palestinians have said they preferred Israeli occupation. Does that mean they welcome the Israelis as liberators? No. It means they prefer stability. And just like the hypothetical situation I described above, those who were against Israel ending the occupation have looked to these Palestinians and said "Ha! See? We told you so!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. LOL

Just how stupid do you think the Iraqi people are?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. So are the Palestinians that have said they prefer Israeli occupation stupid?

Were the Vietnamese that wanted US occupation even though we ravaged their homeland stupid?

No decision is accepted by 100% of the people. Even now, when it is so very clear that we have destroyed that country, not 100% of the people want us to leave. There will be those who would prefer it if the U.S. was there. NOT because the US has done a bang up job, but because a known devil is better than an unknown devil. ALL I am saying, is that when this happens, the democrats and those that wanted this occupation to end are going to have to be prepared to deal with the RW suddenly becoming the best friend of those Iraqis who can help further their agenda.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. I think there are people out there who say the Iraqis want us there.

And I think anybody that falls for it is a sucker.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. BINGO!

Unfortunately this country is full of suckers who will just eat it up. People have short term memories. They won't remember all the damage we did. They won't remember that it was our country that blew apart their country. They won't remember how the vast vast majority of Iraqis wanted us gone. They will see the suffering in Iraq on TV, hear the pundits quote one or two or even ten people that say they wanted us there and they will blame the liberals for the current suffering of the Iraqis.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Let's face it.

If people really really cared about the Iraqis, and thought they wanted us there, they'd enlist.

And since nobody's enlisting, we can assume that they know full well the Iraqis don't want us there, and that they don't give a shit about the Iraqis. They simply repeat the lie that the Iraqis want us there, because they supported the war at the beginning, and they can't admit they fucked up horribly.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. You're right.

That's the bottom line.

[jean]

2. And are the Iraqi people also taking the month of August off, like their "leadership" is?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but while Iraqi politicians vacate Baghdad for cooler climes, the Iraqi people and all of our soldiers continue living through the hell of the Bush/Cheney Occupation.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. I guess what I am trying to say, but having difficulty saying is

I've seen people already using "But the Iraqis prefer us there". This argument annoys me to no end because it doesn't change the fact that we were wrong to invade them in the first place and whoopidee doo, U.S. occupation is slightly less hated than a free for all. It's a false argument and it drives me nuts.

The government we set up in Iraq is a joke. We aren't making any progress. We're in the middle of a civil war. But somehow I feel that even if the democrats do manage to get us out, they will STILL get blamed for the suffering of the Iraqis because people will say "see, it was better when we were there" completely ignoring the fact that it was actually better before we were there and that "better" is a relative term. Not only that, I fear that the next warmongers will use the issue and say "remember what happened to Iraq? We can't leave Iran..".

[jean]

7. no,no,no - I'm not criticising anything you said - you are right on the money. Spot on.

:patriot:

(my comments were off topic, sorry)

[LSK]

4. heres a specific proposal

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html