MSNBC: US Commander In Iraq Says Attacks Are From Iraqi Citizens Angered At US.

I love that the " We shouldn't ask the UN how to conduct our own self-defense" argument has spun so far out of control that it is now worthy of a roll-eyes to suggest that the Iraqis should be consulted on what the United States does...in Iraq.

Especially given that, what with the WMD and 9-11 arguments out thw window, and this therefore not in any way being an action of defending the US, therefore those supporting the war now say we are doing it to liberate the Iraqis.


But obviously while liberating them it is to ask those of them who disagree with us their opinion...on us liberating them...in their country.


So tell me, T_J, if we shouldn't consult the people we are liberating, in their own country...of that is laughable...are you basically saying that we should just do whatever we want in anyone else's country and laugh at their anger when we do it? Who do we answer to when invading other nations?

 

While discussing tired acts, tell me something, texx...in that this is all, as you say, a clearly motivated attempt to support my own favored political party...and thus not an objective analysis of the facts...perhaps you could tell me how pointing out the facts ( worthy of being lead stories, etc.) helps the Republican party?


Now while I have never considered myself a Republican, the fact that I have supported the Republican candidate in 5 of the last Presidentail elections, including Bush over Gore, I can see how to an outsider it could be concluded that I lean towards the Republicans.


But again, if it is so clear what I am doing...if it is so obvious it is tired, perhaps you could explain it to me, texx. I am clearly not as objective or intelligent as you, cause I don't get it.

 

1) We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because everything I heard contradicts that impression.

2) I honestly don't know where the line is on who sees us as Liberators and who sees us as invaders lies. But the point is that one thing is clear, the latter is growing, and that in and of itself makes this news worth reporting, aside from the strategic implications. As in Afghanistan, there are some who saw us as liberators, but the longer we stay there, the more we tell them that they can't have certain types of gevernments if they want them, the more we integrate US commercial interests into Iraq before pulling out, the more people there will see us as doing this for our own purposes, not theirs.

3) Again, according to the article, Sanchez, etc. this isn't about isolated pockets of Iraqis equating to criminals in Houston. I doubt that the police chief in Houston would go on record as saying that the guys robbing/raping were the actions of " ordinary Houstonians....(or is it Houstonites)"

The entire point of the article, and Sanchez's statement is that this is significant for precisely the opposite reason; because this is 'ordinary Iraqis" reacting to US actions in their country.

 

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 17 — The commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq said in an interview published Wednesday that U.S. forces, already under pressure from a guerrilla-style resistance, now face revenge attacks from ordinary Iraqis angered by the occupation. "


"While U.S. forces increasingly patrol Iraqi hotspots with American-trained local militiamen, citizens have voiced growing anger over tactics that are seen as heavy-handed and insensitive to Iraqi social and religious customs."