randomWalks

I agree the media coverage is awful, but I'm sure this would not eradicate all war. We are surrounded by hyper violent images, both real and imagined. More Iraq images would just add to the noise.

I agree that it would not eradicate all war. I thought it made for a gripping quote, though.

I do think that images of what Iraq really looks like would sway people. The media coverage of Vietnam that showed war's brutality helped shift public opinion.

I took some of those al-Jazeera pictures that adam had linked from Fallujah and printed them out. People honestly have no idea that the U.S. is killing children in Iraq. When faced with that truth it becomes much harder to believe the line about the U.S. presence being a "stabilizing force."

But I was very conflicted about whether to use them. It's just so horrid to look at pictures of the dead, especially children. But that's what the occupation looks like. And people should know that.

And, to be fair-minded, it's a war, and the US is not the only party killing children. Al-qeada operatives have killed children in school busses, and rebels have killed children. Everyone is killing children.

And that's because war is not a this side or that side game. It's more like a multi-sided, ever-switching, non-uniform chaos.

And everyone's in a death match.

>And, to be fair-minded, it's a war, and the US is >not the only party killing children.

They have BY FAR killed the most people in this war. Moreover, the fact that an occupying army is sitting in Iraq is the source of ALL the violence. They're the ones dispensing it or they're the target and/or motivation for it.

All of it goes back to Washington.

That's where we should focus the criticism.

>Al-qeada operatives have killed children in >school busses, and rebels have killed children. >Everyone is killing children.

Al Qaeda?

I'm sure they're there but really how significant are they within the larger resistance movement?

The resistance movement has a very broad character.

>And that's because war is not a this side or that >side game. It's more like a multi-sided, >ever-switching, non-uniform chaos.

Ok. But where do we go with this line of thinking?

What are you proposing?

I'm proposing an end to the occupation.

Hey, zagg, seems to me we agree on the same thing. I want an end, too.

I'm just pointing out that you use facts about the US killing children to further your aim of seeing the end of the occupation, whereas I don't give such leniency to the the other parties by thinking that the US is more or less responsible for these deaths.

I've read several accounts from journalists who have pointed out that the US is not the first to attack in these situations, and that when Al Qaeda and the Syria-backed terrorists blow up cars and busses, they are killing children, as well.

Another thing is, while your right that the resistance is more broad than just Al-Qaeda, you have to remember that Al-Qaeda is actually also anti-Iraq, as well.

Al-Qaeda and their subalterns are also against any nationalism that would seek to unite any current factions in a state.

What would you propose, a "false" hope that says that Baathists, Shiites and Sunnis are now one, and united against the United States, or would you like the one that is probably more truthful, that this unity is actually a civil war waiting to happen?

If there's no democratic control of this situation, if nobody does fight to keep this from growing beyond a promised end in June, then the whole mid-east and southern and northern asia is in big deep shit puddles.

I am proposing no solution other than an end to the occupation, but I have to be honest about the reality. It can't happen just with a sudden and incriminating evacuation of US and allied support. Do that, and you create a huge vacumn which will be filled with what really is the problem, a country torn already by racism and religious fanaticism, waiting to pounce all over itself.