Clearly you have absolutely no concept of the reality that exists in Iraq today. People for the first time have new buildings for schools, running water, and even cell phones. American soldiers and contractors are pouring money into that country and developing the country faster than you can believe. There has been serious political spin put on reality (as is to be expected during an election year), but many on slashdot continually quote and reference a sensational news media, who choose to focus on blood and gore because that is what gets attention. The average Iraqi is not joining the insurgency in Iraq and finally something has been done to show it.
Read a review about a documentary, Voices of America that shows real Iraqis talking about their issues. The common thread that is expressed (watch the film yourself before you do not believe me) is that Iraq is happy that Americans liberated them from Saddaam's mercilous rule and they want America to stay in their country until they are secure.
How can you refute this? I was in Iraq and saw the development and Iraqi sentiment first hand. What are you talking about when you say:
A U.S.-led force invaded their country, occupied it, killed many of their buddies and family, broke normality and turned their reality into chaos. It doesn't matter whether the resitance has some kind of "right" to fight back or not, or if they were or are "pro-Saddam" or "pro-dictatorship" or muslim or christians or agnostics or whatever.
This is NOT the case what so ever... You need to check your sources of information. The "normality" that existed was a life of fear. I am not saying that I have no political bias, but I was their first hand and traveled extensively through the country. I am starting to feel that some people ignorantly embrace whatever the media tells them.
anonymous, What are you talking about... "Ah, classic right wing tactic."
I will debunk his statement with the following: I searched for evidence that the poster did not provide and could find nothing. He made a blanket statement, with no proof, accusing a prime minister of being a CIA asset. Who is the person that should provide proof? It should be the accuser.
Isn't it interesting how this author of this post makes a blanket statement with no sources or substantive argument and he gets rated as informative... Statements are dangerous when you go on hearsay. I would assume that/. readers and moderators would be educated enough to ask where some of his facts are instead of the "blind acceptance" that the other posters relate to followers of Bush. Oh, the irony of partisanship.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you have absolutely no concept of the reality that exists in Iraq today. People for the first time have new buildings for schools, running water, and even cell phones. American soldiers and contractors are pouring money into that country and developing the country faster than you can believe. There has been serious political spin put on reality (as is to be expected during an election year), but many on slashdot continually quote and reference a sensational news media, who choose to focus on blood and gore because that is what gets attention. The average Iraqi is not joining the insurgency in Iraq and finally something has been done to show it.
Read a review about a documentary, Voices of America that shows real Iraqis talking about their issues. The common thread that is expressed (watch the film yourself before you do not believe me) is that Iraq is happy that Americans liberated them from Saddaam's mercilous rule and they want America to stay in their country until they are secure.
How can you refute this? I was in Iraq and saw the development and Iraqi sentiment first hand. What are you talking about when you say:
A U.S.-led force invaded their country, occupied it, killed many of their buddies and family, broke normality and turned their reality into chaos. It doesn't matter whether the resitance has some kind of "right" to fight back or not, or if they were or are "pro-Saddam" or "pro-dictatorship" or muslim or christians or agnostics or whatever.
This is NOT the case what so ever... You need to check your sources of information. The "normality" that existed was a life of fear. I am not saying that I have no political bias, but I was their first hand and traveled extensively through the country. I am starting to feel that some people ignorantly embrace whatever the media tells them.
anonymous,
What are you talking about... "Ah, classic right wing tactic."
I will debunk his statement with the following: I searched for evidence that the poster did not provide and could find nothing. He made a blanket statement, with no proof, accusing a prime minister of being a CIA asset. Who is the person that should provide proof? It should be the accuser.
Isn't it interesting how this author of this post makes a blanket statement with no sources or substantive argument and he gets rated as informative... /. readers and moderators would be educated enough to ask where some of his facts are instead of the "blind acceptance" that the other posters relate to followers of Bush. Oh, the irony of partisanship.
Statements are dangerous when you go on hearsay. I would assume that