Any readers who would like to make an informed judgment on this issue, I put up a link for your convenience.

Let the other readers decide for themselves:

whose words are empty
who is denying the truth
whose reasoning are sophisticated
who is conveniently hiding behind “philosophical reasoning”

whether you or I am right in our knowledge and perception of the situation in Iraq, we shall soon find out as the events progresses.

“As you sow, so shall you reap”. - there’s no escaping.

Q2: That is precisely why I want the troops to leave, because their presence clearly does not serve the interests of Iraqis. The argument you are making, in philosophical language, is called begging the question or circular reasoning.

Q3: See Q1.

Q4: I already made it plain that my primary interest is not the welfare of US troops. The argument you are making, in philosophical language, is sometimes called a straw man. You are arguing against a point that I never exposited, and you are equating me and my opinions (despite my clear exposition of the contrary) with your own gross, misinformed generalization of the American people. Have you ever been to my country, to dinner at my table? Of course not. So you have no right to dictate my own opinions to me, such as my primary interest being for the welfare of the troops of my nationality rather than for the people of Iraq.

Q5: If you truly believe that the continued presence of US troops in Iraq is better than any of these alternatives, then I have nothing further to offer on this point. I profoundly disagree with you and I suggest you read more on the topic.

Q6: See Q4

Q7: They are clearly still fighting a war, which is why they need to leave. I think your condescending conception of the Iraqi people as incoherent combatants unable to manage their own affairs shows your ignorance of Iraqi history. The idea that Iraq will descend further into a state of anarchy outside of the presence of the very entity that is creating the anarchy is self-immolating and self-reducing into absurdity. I am sure many Britons were fed such ideas when India gained her independence. “How will she ever manage herself without us?” they must have said in London.

Q8: See Q4, yet again. This is getting tiresome.

I still feel your arguments are largely vapid and reek much more of childlike anger than of sophisticated reasoning. Care to continue? I don’t. I have nothing more to say in regards to this post, thank you kindly.

It is obvious that you and ‘pg’ know each other, and so are trying to defend each other. It also appears you are some kind of a guru, and probably forgotten what it means to have your writings questioned or challenged.

The message for PG is in relation to what she wrote here. I did reply on her page first, but she chose not to publish.
________________________________________________________________

You have asked your readers, on the http://www. to sign a petition based on what YOU think is appropriate in Iraq.

You are in denial that there are people outside of America, who might think differently. I, as one in that group have every right to question you. And because you have requested the public to respond to your call, you have a moral obligation to justify your statements. If you can, that is.

I asked you a few questions you avoided answering them. Let me ask them again.

Q 1.
You have agreed that the ’stated reasons’ for the invasion were not the ‘real reason’. That in fact is saying that your president lied and drummed up a war which was not there. A war that has led to the death of thousands.

First you tell me, is that not a crime? It is. So who takes the responsibility for that crime, who will stand trial, who will hang as an example, so that no other ‘tyrant’ ever has the arrogance to commit the same offense again?

Q2.
You say:
“It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and their sovereignty that the US evacuate the premises expediently.”

Where was the best interests of Iraqi people and respect for their sovereignty when without UN mandate your troops went in?

Q3.
You say:
“Occupying armies have no rights and no responsibilities beyond the desires of the occupied peoples. At least seven out of ten Iraqis want US forces out of their country as soon as possible…

…When the majority of Iraqis want US forces out of their territory, there is no way that a continued presence of the undesired entity can work to bring peace, particularly when the leadership of that entity does not desire peace.”

“Undesired entity”… your words, not mine.

You admit the US Army as an occupying force. The same 7 out of ten Iraqis did not want you in their country in the first place.

What right did your Army have to ‘invade’ and ‘occupy’ and kill soldiers and civilians of a sovereign state; who had not declared war on you or any other state?

Regardless how ‘evil’ or how big a tyrant Mr Hussain was, Mr Bush and Blairs’ actions are crimes no worse than Mr Hussain’s. What steps do you propose be taken against them?

Q4.
You say:
“The situation may worsen before it improves”.

What if it worsens and does not improve; but keeps on worsening?
There is a distinct possibility. You do not care, do you? as by that time your soldiers will be safely out of there.

Q5.
You say:
“The US government can help to mitigate these circumstances by providing appropriately massive financial reparations and by allowing a truly international and multilateral peacekeeping force to assist the young Iraqi government in securing a tenable future.”

You really think ‘massive financial’ reparation is the answer? If that is the answer, why has it failed so far.

And where will you get truly international and multilateral peace keeping force?

Your President has been round the world begging, nobody wants to get involved in the hell he has created. In desperation there has been suggestions of asking Iran!! and Syria for help, will they solve the crises or make the sectarian violence worse?

How would you expect these international peacekeepers to be able to keep peace? Handing out peace pipes? What if they have to ‘kill’ innocent civilians to do the job? Acceptable collateral damage, isn’t that what it is called? What if there are more atrocities like in Abu-Ghraib?

Q6.
You say:
“Therefore, withdrawal of US presence from Iraq is, by far, the lesser of two evils in this excruciating dilemma of a humanitarian crisis.”

What if it is the greater of two evils for the Iraqi civilians, the people who really matters? What if it pushes the country into anarchy from which it never recovers? Into a scenario far worse than Mr Hussein’s regime? It is far more likely that is what will happen.

It maybe the lesser of the two evils from your perspective. You will get what you want out of this. Your troops back home.

_________________________________________________________________
Your friend too makes interesting comments in your defence and / or on your behalf.

Q7.
She said:
“I do agree however that reparations and contributions of both medical and military US personnel to peacekeeping and NGOs ought to be instituted to heal the wound and the damage this BushCo maladministration has created”.

Contribute US personnel for peacekeeping? The very “undesired entity” that the Iraqi people now wants to get rid of? And is not the role of US Army now, as peacekeepers? Or are they still fighting a war?

Q8.
She also writes,
“Does that mean that it ending the war might be pitched by appealing to the numbers of US rather than Iraqi deaths? Yes, probably, but the latter does count too. That US deaths will carry more emotional weight in America is not surprising. It would be the same case in any country. To suggest that Americans are not at all other-regarding or caring is wholly unwarranted and unsupported”.

Ending the war, which war? I presume the war in which the American soldiers are getting killed.

And is that really the end of war in Iraq? How stupid do you think your readers are? What is being suggested by you and your friends is to REPLACE THE PRESENT WAR WITH THE CIVIL WAR, which is already raging. Where Iraqis’ will be killing each other. Innocent Iraqi civilians will die in the cross-fire. Your troops will be safely home.

I would have expected you to answer the questions I had asked before describing my reply as an empty argument. Let other readers decide whose arguments has any substance.

You talk of my hatred for Americans are clouding my judgement.

Try telling the same to the Iraqi civilians who wants you out. Tell them that they are mistaken, their judgement too is clouded in their hatred. That the USofA has sent in their Army to deliver them from evil and make their country a better place.

Awfully glad you enjoyed the music. SRV was one of a kind.

It appears to me that your hatred of America and Americans, while perhaps not wholly unjustified, is clouding your judgment in this matter. Whether or not the majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq at its outset is no longer relevant; I do not recall a referendum on the matter, nor was it an issue at the pertinent Presidential or Congressional ballots. Perhaps you still mistakenly believe that the United States of America is the gleaming bastion of democracy exposited in schoolbooks. Those of us who live here know different, and, indeed, we ought to do better. If you have any suggestions to that end I would be only too happy to entertain them.

Hi,

I thought I would check your page after your comment (as above) on what I wrote (as awmyth) in reply to the petition put forward by curtis.

May I just say, you chose to reply on his behalf and criticised the way I have reacted to the petition and the reasoning behind it.

On your blogs page (http://peoplesgeography.com/about/) you say in your introduction :

“…to the project of promoting contemporary radical geography, a rich tradition of dissent and positing alternatives,…

…we must know what exactly are the disabling and disempowering currents out there eroding democracy and freedom…

…This site is a noticeboard, a repository, a safe-space to air thoughts and to emote, a part of cyberspace that shall be forever radical …(read = aims for justice).”

??

dissent and positing alternatives?
we must know what exactly…?
radical?
aim for justice?

Strangely, what you wrote here in your criticism, is in direct
contradiction to your claims on your blogspage. Nothing, absolutely nothing you claim there, comes across in this message.

“contemporary radical geography” cannot be dissected away from the realities of “contemporary history”; and having the courage to accept and admit to the truth, however unpleasant and unpalatable that may be.

Without the truth every claim, every ‘blog’ degenerates into just empty words. By God, we have more than enough of that in our lives.

Empty words and hypocrisy.

I’ll be forwarding the petition; I was hoping to trackback or pingback (is there a difference?) — do your posts allow trackback URLs? If not I’ll simply use the ordinary URL.

cheers

In the 21st century, a country because of its wealth and military power, thought and decided to ignore the concerns of the world at large and invaded another sovereign country for selfish reasons.

That is the fact here. It is a crime. No matter which way one looks at it.

Comparing the British presence in Iraq a more than 50 years ago is laughable. The world has changed since then in case you have not noticed.

Say you, whatever relieves your conscience, you cannot change the truth.

The only people who will support that petition are the escapists. And those with some form of vested interest, political and or financial. The hypocrites.

Every where the Americans have interfered, they have created a mess for others to suffer. Then they expect other countries to come and sort out the mess.

The more I read of arguments like that you have presented, the more I am convinced that they are getting what they deserve. There is nothing the world can do about it.

How I feel about this issue and how I argue my case with the original writer should not be your concern. Your advocacy on his behalf was unnecessary.

Neither does your and your family links with Arabs and middle east of any relevance here.