Back in the summer, a friend admitted that she was actually taking comfort from the terrible news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. She'd hear about explosions, ambushes, the killing of U.N. officials, pro-American Iraqis, innocent children, and she was saddened by the deaths. But ultimately she thought it was a good thing. She'd thought that enough bloodshed and disaster would create a movement in this country, a demand to get our people home and save some lives. Maybe enough death would wake folks up to the fact that we have no business running around the globe killing people.
--Frankly, everything she says makes perfect sense. It's ONLY because there is an Iraqi resistance AND because several hundred US soldiers have been killed and how many thousands injured, some hideously, that there has developed ANY concern about the US inasion and occupation of Iraq. If there were no Iraqi resistance at this point, there would be NO concern in the US media about the invasion or occupation. That's the ABCs of imperialism I'm afraid. It matters not one hoot to the US state, media, or the US public in general how many Iraqis are killed, injured, or detained by the US or how that has spurred a resistance guerilla movement to arise and sustain itself in Iraq. Now, THAT is scandalous, of course, since that should be a focus of American citizenry in the aftermath of the invasion and present (and likely terminal) occupation of Iraq and goes largely ignored.
----------------------------------- and the following exclamation:
Does it really make sense to describe an American who hopes for her country's defeat at the hands of terrorists and tyrants as "someone who genuinely loves this country"?
---utterly silly, terrorists? praytell how is that defined? gimme a break....