Implicitly behind support for the occupation of Iraq is the racist belief that Americans can run Iraq better then the Iraqis can. If the US were to pull out now the country would be "left in shambles" or "collapse into civil war" or some other doomsday scenario. But these things have already happened, thanks to the invasion & occupation! The war has already put the country in shambles and it will stay in shambles so long as it continues. Most of Bush's $87 billion went to the military to fight the war, not to rebuild Iraq. The "reconstruction" the US government intends to carry out is one that will benefit the US and it's corporations, like Halliburton and Betchel. It's not so much reconstruction as it is robbery. The occupation is effectively leading to a civil war anyway, as the guerillas attack those who collaborate with the US. And the war between the guerrillas and the US is becoming as bad as a civil war would be. If you were kidnapped and beaten, would you want to escape as soon as possible or would you want to be forced to stay kidnapped? Iraq is the one who's been kidnapped, the US is the one doing the kidnapping. Obviously the kidnapper/conquerer isn't going to take care of the victim except insofar as it furthers their own interests. If Nazi Germany defended its' occupation of France by arguing that if they didn't they would leave the country in shambles no one would take that seriously, so why should we take the same excuse seriously when the US occupies Iraq? The US should pull out immediately, it has no right to boss the rest of the world around. Iraqis do not need US troops occupying them in order to rebuild their country.
The Iraqis have every right to defend themselves from foreign aggressors. Western media smears the resistence as all being "Saddam remnants" and "foreign terrorists" but there's no real proof of this. If the guerillas didn't have popular support, or at least more support than the occupation, it's unlikely they would be able to last as long as they have. Guerilla wars require at least a small degree of popular support, otherwise non-combatants will tell the occupiers where the guerillas are, where they live, etc. The Iraqis should kill the minimum number necessary to force the US out of their country. The ideas put forth by idiot liberals to increase the number of troops their, raise troop morale and whatnot are all designed to boost the US position in the war, thereby lengthening it and increasing the number of people killed. All such proposals should be opposed in favor of an immediate pull out of all foreign troops and the defeat of American imperialism.
The war has nothing to do with defending the United States from Al-Qaeda, except for the fact that supporters of the US use this boogeymean to justify the war. There is no evidence linking Bin Laden & Saddam Hussein's government. Bin Laden is a fundamentalist and Sadaam is a Secular Nationalist - they hate each other. Hussein even fought an eight-year war with fundamentalists in Iran. Muslim Fundamentalists are his arch-enemy. No credible evidence has been presented tying the Republic of Iraq to any act of anti-American terrorism committed prior to the US invasion in recent years. Leaked UK intelligence
proves that there is no link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to any other country. Iraq has not attacked any country since the U.S. stopped giving them weapons a decade ago. Every country bordering Iraq claims that Iraq is not a threat to them - even Kuwait and Iran (both past victims of Iraqi aggression).
Weapons of Mass destruction was another lie used to justify the war, if they actually had weapons of mass destruction they would have used them during the invasion. Even if Iraq did have a little mustard gas left over, that was not grounds for war. Many countries, including the U.S., have far deadlier weapons. The U.S. used weapons which are just as bad (such as "daisy cutters" and cluster bombs) during the war in Afghanistan. Considering that the US has more weapons of mass destruction then the rest of the world combined there is no reason why Iraq should be expected to disarm when the US isn't. The US has over 10,000 nukes - should it be invaded? If Rumsfeld, et al. were really worried about the spread of weapons of mass destruction, then they wouldn't have given Iraq weapons of mass destruction in the first place. Bush's "concern" about such weapons obviously is bogus, because plenty of other countries have such weapons, but he doesn't want to invade them. This was just a lie used to justify aggression against another country.
It's hypocritical to criticize Iraq for allegedly violating U.N. resolutions, yet support U.S.-forced "regime change" because the latter violates U.N. resolutions as well. Many countries besides Iraq have made far more serious violations of U.N. resolutions (Israel is an excellent example), yet Bush doesn't want to bomb them. The same U.N. resolution which requires Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction orders the U.S. to stop giving weapons to other countries in the region, which the U.S. violates.
The Bush administration likes to compare the occupation to the US's occupation of Germany & Japan after WW2, but a better analogy is the US occupation of Nicaragua from 1912-1933. Like Iraq, this was not brought about by a World War but by ordinary non-World War imperialist interests. The US occupied Nicaragua to expand it's power and enforce neocolonialist relations, much as it is doing in Iraq. Just as in Iraq a guerilla war eventually developed against the US occupation. One of the major organizers of this guerilla war was Augusto Sandino, an anarcho-Syndicalist. Eventually the guerillas, combined with the great depression, killed enough American forces to make the US alter it's strategy. The US created a highly corrupt and brutal puppet government under the Somozas. They built up the Somozas forces until it was capable of dealing with the guerillas itself, then the occupation was lifted. A brutal US puppet dictatorship then crushed the resistence. It appears the guerillas in Iraq may be forcing the US to switch to a similar strategy. Bush is now accelerating plans to set up an Iraqi government with it's own police, military, etc. so as to have it deal with the popular resistence, instead of US forces. Domestically this client state will be portrayed as democratic, but in reality it will be an American puppet government.
All these claims of "promoting freedom and democracy" and "enforcing UN resolutions" are just a pretext for naked aggression against an oil-rich country. Killing people for oil is wrong. Bush's imperialist war against Iraq is ultimately no different then Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait. All peoples have the right to self-determination and to be free of foreign domination. The U.S. has no right to bully the rest of the world around. The US is not interested in bringing democracy to Iraq or any other country, which is why there hasn't been any elections in Iraq. In the name of "fighting communism," the U.S. subverted many democratic regimes and supported numerous dictators and mass murderers, which were just as bad (and sometimes worse) as the Marxist-Leninists they claimed to oppose. Pinochet, Marcos, bin Laden, Mobutu Sese Seko, Papadopulos, Suharto, Savimbi, Banzer, Videla, Batista, Somoza, Cordova and many other brutal thugs all were backed by the U.S. government. The U.S. continues to back many tyrannical regimes today including the Saudis, Mubarak, Musharraf and others. If the U.S. government had any interest in promoting freedom and democracy, they wouldn't be supporting these dictatorships.
Site Feed