Good writing. But, as some sort of analogy with the invasion of Iraq, it's baseless.

Nice fantasy. And zero effect on anything besides Cole's over inflated ego.

Good story. I realize for many it's easier for them to not put human faces on Bush's misguided War On Iraq. It's always easier on the conscious if we can keep the definitions limited to 'us' and 'them'.

There are many of us though who realize that Iraqis are humans too, and it's good to see things from their perspective. I realize that there are many Iraqis that are glad Saddam is gone and are thankful to us for exchanging regimes, but I also realize that there would be many Iraqis just like the people described in this analogy.

Christian Peacemaker Teams have been in Iraq for over 1 year detailing many abuses of Iraqis.

Sheila Provencher, a Catholic lay minister and full-time activist from South Bend, Indiana is a CPT member in Iraq. She writes a good article on beliefnet.com, about what she has witnessed personally in Iraq. However she tempers it with the reminder that there are good soldiers and for those that do abuse, she reminds us of post-traumatic stress disorder (of having to practically live in a military vehicle that can be bombed at any time), and of not seeing family for many many months at a time.

However she does validate your analogy 100% and then some:

"In order to capture one suspect, the Coalition forces arrest all of the male members of a household, during chaotic midnight raids that terrify entire families and sometimes end in the injury or death of women and children. I and other CPT colleagues documented a case in which Coalition forces arrested 83 out of 85 men and boys in the village of Abu Sifa, leaving the women and children to maintain all of the farming and other heavy work for months. Once the men are in detention, families find it extremely difficult to secure information about them, and do not know if they are alive or dead. The waiting period for visits can be up to five months. Many women and children who rely on the male breadwinner become homeless while he languishes in jail. Thousands of such detainees have eventually been released, without ever finding out what was the reason for their arrest."

We need to finish the job, but it will be good when we can get back to fighting terrorists instead of creating them.

Dude, extraordinary job, and there is always another side to every story and you have done that tradition proud (okay, "Red Dawn" sucked ass).

But Iraq was a totalitarian shithole of random state terror and only the fuckers who benefitted from that state of affairs give a shit about maintaining the status quo. Of course a percentage of the population is/was resentful of ANY invader asserting control by force, but the only real objections to "regime change" have come from those who resent losing a position of privilege and Islamist fanatics, who would have gone on he rampage whenever Saddam would have "retired."

But it's a real good story

the only real objections to "regime change" have come from those who resent losing a position of privilege

When an entire village loses all it's men, and the women and children have to do all the hard farming, while many of them become homeless....I guess saying they are 'losing a position of privilege' is one way of looking at it.

did you miss this? "Of course a percentage of the population is/was resentful of ANY invader asserting control by force"

It's a nice fantasy that 'the only real objections to "regime change" have come from those who resent losing a position of privilege and Islamist fanatics.'

It makes good propaganda in support of this adminstration, but there is no evidence for it.

Certainly that describes some of the resistance, but it is too widespread for it to be a universal truth.

And by the way, I understand that "lots" of terrorists have indeed been drawn into Iraq, but I can't find anyone who will tell me how many foreign fighters there really are in the country, not even a SWAG.

The only data I ever saw that might give us an indication of the truth was that of the thousands processed and jailed in Abu Ghraib, only 29 were foreigners.

That's a few months old, so I'm sure the percentage has increased - can you point me at more current data? Maybe the number of foreigners killed compared to native Iraqi fighters killed? Or anything at all?

Thanks.

Eric, no I didn't miss it, I just saw it as negated by the following clause:

"BUT the only real objections have come from those who resent losing a position of privilege"

I took it to mean that you acknowledge that many Iraqis are 'resentful' (which doesn't mean taking action), but those who are 'objecting' ARE those who are resorting to action. Apologies if that is not correct.

It's my understanding from the reports that I read, similiar to the links I posted previously, that many of the people who are throwing bombs at American soldiers aren't doing so because they lost their successful Iraqi business, they're doing so because they lost multiple family members and/or limbs.

which is a tragic byproduct of any military action and part of why war is hell

I agree.

My point is that I see reports from the Red Cross, Christian Peacemakers, Amesty Int. etc. that actually go into the prisons and talk with the detainees. The reports they come out with, do not substantiate that the insurgent fighting in Iraq is based on the loss of privilege. I would like someone who dismisses the insurgents as 'mostly those who lose privilege' to substantiate their claim with proof.

I didn't think Red Dawn was all that bad. At least it had realistic explosions, unlike every other Hollywood movie I've ever seen.

I would like to thank all who took the time to read this, and especially those who commented, whether publicly or privately, here and elsewhere.

I had some conflict about whether I should post it or not. On the one hand, I felt a sense of urgency to do so before October,
( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/eveningnews/printable644096.shtml )

but at the same time I am not sure whether attempting to "make people think" who are not already doing so is an act of kindness or an act of cruelty, given the facts on the ground as events unfold.

In response to several emails I have received, Malaysia was used as an example only, I needed the name of a country, and in no way did I intend to infer that the people of Malaysia would support, fund, or tolerate the atrocities and crimes against humanity referenced in the article.

Many of the responses, and where they came from, were humbling. I thought I knew something about the vastness of the disconnect between even the "fringes" of mainstream American culture and the view of the rest of the world, especially with regard to the question of others as human beings. I was wrong.

Iraqis are not alone in their unshakable conviction that they are human, and that neither they, their land, their natural resources or their daughters are the property of the United States, a view so diametrically opposed to the mainstream American view as to be irreconcilable.

To my fellow "insurgents," who express regret that it is "too late," let me ask you to remember that the United States is only one country on a planet of over 200 countries, including some for which it may not be too late.

I also have mixed feelings, I understand the impulses leading to a demonstration of an alternative view of the world from mainstream America, but what leads you to make this statement: "Iraqis are not alone in their unshakable conviction that they are human, and that neither they, their land, their natural resources or their daughters are the property of the United States"

I don't recall anyone, and certainly no one is a position of responsibility, saying anything to the contrary. What claim has any American made to the land, natural resources or daughters of Iraq, or any other country, for that matter.

And then, more broadly and quite seriously, what is this grand internationalist vision of yours that lies beyond even the fringe of mainstream America? What is your vision for the world? How should it be run? What is America's place in it?

It seems to me a geometric miracle to so rearrange things as to make 200 nations more enlightened, civilized - or whatever your implication is - than the U.S.

What what leads you to make this statement: "Iraqis are not
alone in their unshakable conviction that they are human, and that
neither they, their land, their natural resources or their daughters are the
property of the United States"

It is my opinion that many people in many countries share this view. I would even suggest that even the most cursory investigation will bear me out.



I don't recall anyone, and certainly no one is a position of
responsibility, saying anything to the contrary. What claim has any American
made to the land, natural resources or daughters of Iraq, or any other
country, for that matter.

For an overview of this, I would suggest that you review the current locations of US-funded gunmen and their activities. Also see Executive Order 13303, as well as its predecessor, 12722. That should get you started.

And then, more broadly and quite seriously, what is this grand
internationalist vision of yours that lies beyond even the fringe of mainstream
America? What is your vision for the world? How should it be run? What
is America's place in it?

It seems to me a geometric miracle to so rearrange things as to make
200 nations more enlightened, civilized - or whatever your implication is
- than the U.S.

A long time ago, someone asked Gandhiji what he thought of western civilization.
His reply - "I think it would be a good idea."

The filmy Utopia you hint at is not possible, in any country. There is, however, as they say in the US mountain region, a "fur piece" between filmy Utopia and the current pandemic of atrocities currently implementing US policies in various locations around the globe.

I think the following may address your point better than anything I would add today. As the situation has deteriorated, I continue to prefer to take a positive view, namely that out of those 200 odd countries, it may not be too late for all of them.

===============================

The Demonization of the Moderates

Do you even know what one is? In recent years, the US has shifted so far to the right that true moderates are regularly called extremists, far left fringe, and a variety of other labels intended to smear, to discredit, to dismiss.

An argument can be made that before any real adjustment can take place, it will be necessary to first splash a little cold water of reality on the situation.

Unqualified and categorical opposition to imperialism, to colonialism, to feudalism, by whatever name is not extremist.

Equal protection under the law is not extremist.

Requiring that ALL nations abide by international laws and conventions is not extremist.

The principle that a day's labor should be at the very least, worth a day's survival is not extremist.

That a nation should provide health care to all its citizens, without qualifiers or profiteering or exceptions is not extremist.

The recognition that a nation where only a small percentage of the population participate in the political process is not a democracy, nor is its government legitimately elected is not extremist.

Demanding the application and enforcement of a single universal standard of human rights is not extremist.

These are all moderate positions, yet expression of support for any one of them will trigger a storm of invective, even by self-proclaimed "leftists," who with an extraordinary feat of ledgerdemain, manage to twirl their ideology into a gnarled teratoid that would frighten the Gipper himself, and send Barry Goldwater screaming into the desert night.

It is time to de-program, time to call things by their real names, to reclaim the lost art of independent thought, and put that first muddy foot on the step that leads out of the pit, and from there, possibly to civilization.

http://ductapefatwa.blogspot.com/2004/03/demonization-of-moderates-do-you-even.html

Juan Cole's article is worth reading, too.

During WWII, Canada liberated Holland and Belgium from the Nazi Germany.

The majority of the Afghans support our presents there.

Unlike the Americans, we Canadians put human rights first!

The majority of the Afghans support our presents there.

Unlike the Americans, we Canadians put human rights first!

First point - I strongly suspect that the majority of Afghan's don't know anything about the Canadian presence in Afghanistan and don't differentiate us from the US or anyone else - we are all foreigners... Afghanistan has a long clannish tradition of suspicion and dislike for all outsiders. I suspect that even those who support the Coalition's mission probably would ideally prefer not to have outsiders in the country...

Lastly, Canadians certainly don't have an exclusivity on human rights and claiming we put it before the Americans is sanctimonious and disingeneous at best. Remember Somolia?