Welcome to Gaia! ::

What bothers me the most about the Bush issue is how people who don't know an ounce of American politics will be all, "OMGKILLBUSH FTW LOLOLOLOL1!!11!!!oneone!11!two"

Yeah. Completely biased bits that they use to make their judgement on the whole situation.

Ugh, no, you're making me actually read and think. This is too much for my poor brain! D:

And anyhow, there's always two sides to the dispute, and what you hear isn't necessarily unbiased. I'm sure that there are some people in America and Iraq who support having the troops there, and some people who think that it's wrong. Of course, there's always the question of how many people, but I'm not caught up enough on the news to say something about that.

<.<
SOME are. But, I dunno.
I've read and seen plenty of articles of people who are just exhausted of the fighting. Frankly, a lot of normal people miss Saddam too. At least they had stability. And a LOT less ethnic and religious violence. Saddam was a sucky b*****d. But things haven't gotten that much better in a lot of places. They view the Americans as the instigators of the fighting. A lot of people got injured in the initial invasio. They figure once the Americans leaves the fighting will lessen. Which is, granted, unlikely.

And how did the American's stabilize it again?
<.<
Essentially the same way.
Additionally he only used that on a small minority of people. Very few were actually affected by it. The violence in Iraq is widespread. Almost EVERYONE has lost somebody to insurgency. Which they blame on the Americans, right or wrong. Would the terrorists be there if it weren't for America? Sectarian violence was at a minimum before. They associate the arrival of the Americans with the beginning of serious violence between sunnis and shias.

Sure, it's always been there. But it hasn't been quite so elevated in recent memory.

<.<
Why the ******** is my kitty eating muffin wrappers?
Silly kitty. Muffins are a kids.

Because a) changing Presidents in the middle of a war is the stupidest thing you can do, and b) Kerry wasn't fit for the job.

I'd rather go with the guy with the bad ideas than the one with no ideas. At least the former has some kind of clear path.

There's a big difference between what Saddam did and the American presence.

Namely, Saddam gassed totally innocent people for no damned good reason, where as the Americans stick to the basic rule of killing the people shooting at you.

If my response seemed rushed, it's because I had to go to Courtney and didn't have time for a better response.

Of course there is a difference.
We know that.
But the people of Iraq probably feel differently.
If you compare what the results...
If you were a regular joe living in Iraq before the American invasion it was likely your rights were infringed upon and you weren't making a great living and you were feaful. But unless you were kurd, it was unlikely that you were gassed and also, less sectarian violence.
What the Iraqis are seeing now is nation-wide violence against ALL people - kurds, sunnis, shias. They are far more exposed to the violence they associate with America than that which WE associate with Saddam.

And lots of innocent people were hurt of killed by the mortars.
And, yeah, for pretty much no reason.
What reason did he have? WMD? That turned out to be a fraudulent claim that they government may have even known to be false at the time?

There have been many cases, as of late, of Americans killing innocent Iraqis. And while most people don't, soldiers who just go about doing regular business doesn't make good news anywhere.

It's not only just violence from Americans Iraqis associate with this new occupation era. It's the acceleration of sectarian violence that has occured in the time since.