frandroid

In an article from the Toronto Star about James Loney and the CPT in Iraq:
"Despite the group's continual denunciation of the U.S. presence in Iraq, or "occupation" in its parlance, MacKay denies it demonizes the military: "We do talk to the soldiers, high and low; the kid at the gate, the commanders. A lot of them are unhappy. Our hearts go out to them."

"occupation" in its parlance? What kind of cowardly journalism is this? Foreign countries have over 75,000 soldiers on the ground, and you can't even say that it's an occupation?

I was all against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm very curious as to how people in the anti-war movement see pullouts from devastated countries turning countries right back to dictatorships, or civil warfare. I mean we saw what happened in Afghanistan, and what kind of peace was restored. Of course I have a lot more hope in Iraq, which was a socialist country and thus has a well-educated population; but university diplomas cannot do very much against Kalashnikovs and C4. I know that the destruction of a country's infrastructure and then occupation creates a self-fulfilling prophecy justifying the occupation itself. I know that the Americans have done very little in Iraq to actually rebuild the country, other than let KBR build 11 or 14 military bases with foreign labour or whatnot. But the belief that democracy will just emerge unhampered once the Americans/NATO pull out is pure heresy in my eyes. So where's the plan? Like, the Invisible Hand of Democracy is just as much a fable as is The Invisible Hand of the Free Market. So what do people envision, really?