Cobb

Every media report I have seen, says Al Sadr is a 30 year old. An Iraqi blogger however says he is really 23 years old.

Now who the hell is right? He sure acts like an irresponsible hot-head so he might be 23 as is claimed.

They really have no legitimate reason to be combattants. What do they do when the government is theirs? They shut up and obey? No, they'll find another reason to try to get the American Army to leave Iraq.

If it's a democratically elected government, by what right will the American army still be in occupation of their country?

Several.

1. Iraq has no army. They may not be in danger from Syrians, but they might be from Iranians. We don't hear much of the Iranian opinion on things, though.

2. Iraqi police are still not ready for prime time. Who is stopping all the mad bombers in Iraq? Not Iraqis. It doesn't sound like law & order to me.

3. It remains in the American interest to keep troops in Iraq.

So there are three reasons, two of which are in the Iraqi interest. At any rate, I'm sure it is a condition of the provisional government for the coalition forces to remain.

OK, I suspect I'm not going to get very far here, but I'll try anyway. Before I start, I just want to say that I've got a lot of respect for your intelligence, the way you seem to be prepared to change your mind in the face of new evidence, and the strong libertarian slant I detect in your politics. I also think the XRepublic stuff is a fantastic idea.

No doubt you're wondering what all the soft soap is for. It's to try and make it clear that this isn't a personal attack.

I think you are naive in believing your government's stated reasons for the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. I've seen nothing that suggests that Iraq was a viable threat to the safety of US citizens. Oil interests, maybe. The invasion seems to have been on the cards before 9-11; there is no believable evidence I have seen linking Iraq to al-Qaeda; few people seem to believe the promised WMD will ever be found, or even existed by the time the decision to invade was taken.

As for your justification for the continued occupation, it seems the 'mad bombers in Iraq' are mostly attacking the occupying forces (I'm hazy on this, slap me if I'm wrong). Why? The reconstruction seems to be proceeding dismally slowly, with contracts going almost exclusively to US-based multinationals. There are a number of reports of American forces committing war crimes in Fallujah, unacceptable regardless of the provocation. Private mercenaries hired by the allies appear to be running amok.

And all of this overlooks the bigger picture. Why is there such hostility towards America and her allies in the Arab world? The picture that is often painted is of nations filled with Islamic fundamentalists who hate the freedom the US stands for. I don't know how true this is. I suspect it is a substantial exaggeration. Even if there are fundamentalist aspects to the hostility, it surely gains support from the common people who view America's actions as neo-colonialism. Perhaps not surprising when you consider that as of Septemeber 2001, there were 254,788 US troops on foreign soil - in 153 different countries. The 725 foreign bases were spread across 38 countries. The last war fought by the Allies in the Middle East was to 'liberate' Kuwait, which remains about as democratic as Saudi Arabia, ruled by a royal family supported by huge wealth from oil sales.

You'd be pissed too.

I argued against the first war, but I see things a bit differently now. First off, it is absolutely clear to me that there is no colonial payoff. The money simply isn't there for this to be about oil. I determined that a long time ago here.

What I'm focused on in this thread is the fate of the average Joe who was not in the Iraqi army who has joined a militia since the occupation. This person should not be representative of the average Iraqi. I just read today that they are not only attacking coalition forces but Iraqi police stations and the town halls. We already know that Baathists have taken refuge in hospitals and mosques to shoot at US forces, and now our rules of engagement for Fallujah are don't shoot unless you're shot at.

I'll continue on, but I've got an errand to run, I just wanted you to have that clarification right off.

Looks interesting. The economics of energy are fascinating, as is the psychology of the Bush administration and the neocon / neocolonialist attitude. I'll go read and research, and hopefully come back armed with some references.