Quote:
Originally posted by Larry_OHF:
Quote:
Originally posted by Animal:
Does this surprise you?
As far as I'm concerned the US had no intention of ever letting an impartial party decide the future of Iraq. Yet another example of the Arrogant Empire.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
|
Look who's talking about arrogance! 
You know...my boss (who is Canadian) chose instead to live here in North Carolina instead of his birth place. Why? From him...he admits life is better here. I have known other Canadians that say the same.
What is the real reason for your aggression against us then? Is it just the popular thing to do these days? Hate America to take your mind off of problems at your own doorstep? Get off the "Hate America" band-wagon and do something useful with that energy you have built up.
Now back on topic with the rebuilding of Iraq. Just today I read that we will not allow just exiles to be in charge...but also current residents, kurds, and others that make up a wide variety of people and backgrounds, and I am glad to hear it. What has been posted above is good reading. I can see the work in rebuilding what has been destroyed mostly in our responsibility to fix, as we are the ones leading the destruction. We also have supplies more readily available like one of you said in a different way above. So, yeah...I can see where we are going with this...but I also hope that we are not the only ones to be involved. I am mainly saying that if another country offers to help, we will hopefully accept the offer and work together. Sharing in a project can be healing for any hurt feelings that may be out there.[/QUOTE]What makes you think that I hate America?
I disagree with the US governments one sided approach to the whole Iraq issue and the half truths that have been used to accomplish their goals. If you haven't read the article titled "The Arrogant Empire," then you should. It is quite enlightening.
Over the past few days I have read many articles outlining the reconstruction of post-war Iraq, all slightly different. The main theme they do have in common however is Washington's desire to place a US appointed civilian as head, with US appointed officials to run the country as an "interim." How long that interim will last is anyone's guess, 6 months, 6 years, 60 years?
To me this seems as another example of the US deciding what is best. Even Blair agrees that the UN should have the primary say as to how Iraq is rebuilt, yet the US seems to disagree with that position. Why? I see nothing wrong with allowing the UN to control Iraq's immediate future. Apparantely, some US officials don't see it that way.