A New Hope For The Iraqi People!?

I have been engaging in blogging dialogue with the citizen blogger panelist who spoke at the Freedom Forum in Salt Lake City last week. I’m finding it kind of fun and a good way to practice my “listening” skills and a chance for me to articulate things on my mind in a different way.

Ken Bingham’s post today,
A New Hope For The Iraqi People!, starts off by insinuating that protestors of the U.S. Occupation in this country were disappointed in the smooth election and little violence yesterday. He also claims that Iraqi’s are now “free” and that the U.S. has planted the “seeds” of democracy. His comment section allowed me to make some portion of my comments I wanted to make, but wouldn’t allow me to provide links to sources, so here is my whole response to his post:
——————————————————
Ken:
I take exception to the first part of your sentence, “Much to the chagrin of some in the United States, insurgence and terrorists in Iraq, the vote for a new Constitution went smoothly and with little violence in Iraq today.”

You are insinuating that people in the U.S. who oppose a U.S. occupation of Iraq, all of whom support the concept of democracy, advocate a violent voting experience for the people of that country. That could not be further from the truth. Most people want a non-violent voting experience. It’s too bad that voting experiences in our own country do not even set that example.

Also, I would like to point out that the people of Iraq are not free. They are under occupation.

If they Iraqi people are indeed “free”, why are many of the headlines touting “U.S. victory”? I thought this was supposed to be an Iraqi “victory”, yet it is not being billed that way.

This Reuters article,
US sees victory as Iraq counts votes, reports that election did run smoothly, but it only reports on the votes of the Sunnis.

Other articles reporting on the vote:
BBC
UN News Center

Iraq is “war torn” because the United States made it that way. Between 1991(the Gulf War) and the next invasion, March 2003, The U.S. bombed Iraq on a daily basis as well as imposed sanctions on Iraq that primarily hurt the civilian population.
This Reuters article,
UN Official: US Troops ‘Starving’ Iraqi Civilians, reports on the accusation that the U.S. and Britain are breaking international law with regards to providing basic needs to civilians in this “war torn” country by “using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population”.

If the U.S. is providing the “seeds” of democracy, I am wondering why it continues to break international law and deprive basic needs to humans? Oh, I forgot. The U.S. denies basic needs to humans in its own country (e.g., New Orleans). That must be what democracy is. So I guess the U.S. is “staying the course” by treating Iraqis the same as it treats its own citizens. I get it now.

We need to look at what history has taught us. Elections in a “war torn country” which was hailed by U.S. administration and the media at the time as being a “victory in our war and for democracy” has happened before. In Vietnam, Deja vu.

A day after the elections, the New York Times reported that “United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.”

In late 1967, there were roughly half a million US soldiers in South Vietnam, and victory over the communist north still seemed possible, until the security situation deteriorated sharply after Hanoi launched “Tet” offensive on January 31, 1968.
(Source=Daily Times).

Thanks for the opporunity to express myself on your blog, Ken.