If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The Iraq situation
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
When I look at the way that Iraq has changed since the invasion, a French saying (how appropriate) comes to mind: "Plus la change, c'est la même chose". (the more it changes, the more it stays the same) Am I the only one who thinks this?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
sorry i don't fully understand this, explain it better please.
When the US invaded they appeared powerful, so Iraqis "bowed" before them. Then the insurgency got going and now they appear powerful, consequently the Iraqis are starting to look at them wondering if they will be the next leaders. Why would they want to piss them off...?
In fact everything will continue to be exactly the way it was two days ago. It is truly pathetic to hear the chimp and his poodle speak of "terrorism having been defeated" by the election, and trying to claim the election as some kind of vindication of their illegal actions.
The root of the problem, namely the illegal occupation of Iraq by illegal and foreign fighters coupled with the continuing control of its oil resources and infrastructures by foreign companies (American oil corporations or construction firms) continues as if nothing had happened. And for as long as this is so the violence will not only continue to exist, but actually grow.
it's very hard for any society, any person even to adapt to change, even though the change might seem good the idea of an "occupation" is not a good one for many iraqis, the iraqi people aren't going to go to bed one night in a hail of violence and wake up the next in a peaceful democratic world, it'll be a gradual shift and i must admit things aren't lookin hopeful but if America actually bothered to get up and leave then things'll change.
Funny, that.
yea see thats the thing that bugs me, choosing Iraqs destiny or choosing America's destiny?
That'll be because it hasn't happened.
This election was monitored by an election commission appointed by Dictator Bremer, under the auspices of a "President", trained by the CIA and appointed by said Dictator Bremer, and security was provided by Emporer Bush and Fiddler Rumsfeld. Candidates were too scared to put their names to their nominations, and no party was allowed to discuss the duration of the occupation after the election.
Furthermore if you'd read the fucking thread you'd have noted that elections held under the auspices of foreign resource stealers and racial dominators are dubious legally ,and America doesn't like them when other racial conquerors hold them.
Furthermore, there is all fuck all free and fair about risking life and limb to vote for the US appointed CIA stooge.
If you don't understand this post, read it again and again till you do.
If you disagree, I'd be grateful if you could show that it wasn't an American production......
as I have bothered to show that it was from start to finish.
Or are you just spinning empty right wing rhetoric again, hoping no-one would notice?
:rolleyes:
Could it be because:
A) These elections are "free" as long as the winner and eventual president meets the approval of the US government. If you think for a minute that, for instance, a shiite candidate could win, introduce sharia Muslim laws and start preaching against the evil West a la Iran and the US would allow it you got another thought coming.
Sadly the elections have changed nothing. The illegal occupation continues, the take-over of all profitable industries in Iraq by US companies continues, the insurgency continues and the suicide bombings continue. Being able to vote freely for the first time will make little difference to all those who will be shot by US marines or blown up by roadside car bombs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1402981,00.html
"The scathing report by Stuart Bowen Jr, the inspector general for reconstruction, said that while the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was careful to monitor the spending of US taxpayers' money in Iraq, it failed to provide proper oversight of projects paid for with Iraq's own funds."
:eek:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1403077,00.html
With regard to the corruption and the billions of Dollars already missing, where are all those right-wingers who like to complain about the UN being corrupt and about money from the oil-for-food programme being taken?
For all the accusations of the UN being "corrupt", "useless" and blah blah blah, it would seem that it is still an infinitely more trustworthy, commendable, helpful and decent force-for-good organisation than the US government could ever hope to be.
But then, this is not news to anyone who isn't a neo-con.