"WE" don't rule Iraq. The Iraqi Govt does
Perhaps I mistated something in my post. I did not mean to indicate that we rule it at this point in time. Currently we simply occupy it. I can only assume you have no problem with that definition as it is exactly what we claimed Syria's relationship with Lebanon was.
The problem is that we are talking about the entirety of our stay in Iraq over which such incidents have taken place. After we toppled Saddam, we were ruling Iraq. We ruled Iraq plain and simple, until the interim gov't was set up.
Thus the events took place during our invasion, rule, and subsequent occupation of Iraq.
Furthermore, nobody is saying that Iraqis don't want us to leave. Most do. We know that and don't deny it. Nobody wants a foriegn military force in their country (with exception of peacekeeping missions). So I'm not sure how you think the US somehow shrugging this off.
You have shifted the topic. I was discussing the treatment of accusations against the prevailing military forces by Iraqis. When it was Saddam all Iraqi complaints were gospel and indicative of the nature of his military, now that it is us all Iraqi complaints are dismissed as fabrications until overly documented at which point we say they are isolated and cannot be said to represent the nature of our military.
There is a rather obvious double standard running.
However, we won't leave the country until thier National Guard and Police force is operationally capable to handle whatever the IIG needs them to do.
I think I have said this before, but I will repeat it for you just in case. Despite being thoroughly against the invasion of Iraq, since it did happen I am thoroughly for keeping the military in place until a stable gov't can take over. I have not said anything to the contrary.
Supporting our presence until a stable gov't can rule under its own power is not synonymous with pretending there are problems with our occupation which need to be addressed.
Please, post more detail about why you think it is so odious.
A seasoned intelligence agent completes his mission, saving a kidnapped journalist. Returning with said journalist the car is shot up, killing the agent who put himself in the way of the bullets to save the journalist.
Now, according to the US, we are to believe the story from the soldiers that fired the shots, over the testimony of everyone in the car who survived, that this seasoned agent... having just secured the release of the hostage... ordered his driver to race at top speed and not slow down, even as warning shots were fired into the air?
Does this make any sense to you?
The fact that the US is not interested in sharing info and is protecting those soldiers from nonbiased investigation (third party), pretty well shows something isn't completely Kosher. Its like us saying our mice didn't eat the cheese because as we know all US mice would never do such a thing, and anyway we asked them and they said they didn't.
You were one to use the "common sense test". I would like to hear your explanation of events such that the US soldiers were not to blame and yet it can pass any sort of common sense test.
Essentially, if the US position is true, all the victims suddenly decided to become "enemies" of the US and are lying simply to stain us. Does that make more sense than the soldiers are lying to save their asses?
I find lying odious. I find insults to my intelligence odious. I find gov't support of a pretty obvious lie, most odious of all. You understand our actions only deepen world cynicism over anything we say?
I like the US, this does not help the US.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
