in response to "where do you stand" by Reggie (he has a similar template to mine ;)

"Now you would think everyone in the world who values freedom would be rooting for the Iraqis to have it, but they are not"

I think people of the world do stand for Iraqi freedom only its freedom from what they would call US imperial democracy. They share the view with the majority of Iraqis who see the US presence in Iraq as an occupation (1) rather then an everlasting liberation and freedom as our US government has labeled it.

“And overseas, it's the same thing. France, Germany, and other countries are gloating about the messy Iraq situation.”

Exactly who should be blamed for the “messy” Iraq situation? Do Iraqis really hate freedom so much? The domestic US population was told that they were liberating the people there. The US administration proclaimed the people of Iraq would be welcoming us with roses.

The question I would have for you is at what point in terms of slaughtering the resistance does the Iraqi project lose its moral high ground? Say 20% of the population in Iraq will never accept the parameters of type of imperial democracy and freedom that the US is providing. Should we accept our Governments response as saying those Iraqis universally hate freedom and we should kill anyone that resists our messianic vision for their future?

Do you simply take our governments position regardless of the wishes or consequences for the Iraqi population? If I poll was conducted that established that say 93 percent of the population wanted us to leave would that be irrelevant to the Administrations mission of freedom? What if we are able to establish a proper “democratic” client state, will you break with the party line if that government begins to kill a lot of people? Did you go against the US government’s position when we were working with Saddam? Did you criticize that relationship? If so why? If killing and torturing people are wrong is it wrong when a client state does it in the name of stability or in the name of freedom?

“And until they develop a smart policy to defeat the Islamic killers, they're just spitting in the wind.”

There is a great deal of literature available that proposes very detailed strategies and courses of action that do not include invading and occupying countries while simultaneously securing our safety.
If your actually interested in reading some I would recommend the Project on Defense Alternatives(PDA). The Iraqi Election "Bait and Switch" article is very informative; I would love to hear what you have to say about it.
Furthermore resources such as the PDA and zmag, have been predicting the current situation in Iraq before we invaded, while the US Government has been consistently painting a much different picture. I guess I am exposing my personal bios in I tend to believe people that predict what going to happen rather then put out propaganda so that the domestic population can buy into their agenda.

Keep in mind the neo-con agenda is perfectly logical and laid out very clearly in the Project for a New American century and else where. The invasion of Iraq is well calculated response to very serious issues such as peak oil theory and the rise of competing economies in Asia. I just think it is problematic to try and bring “freedom” to people and simultaneously maintain our geo-political hegemony as a lucky coincidence.

So if you chose to respond here are my questions:
1. How many Iraqis would we or our Iraqi collaborates have to kill before you would think the occupation was a bad idea? Or is their no limit to the death and destruction we can wield as long as it is in the name of freedom? At what point would you have criticized our government for supporting Saddam though the worst of his atrocities?
2. Do you read alternative Literature on the subjects at hand? I try to read a great deal of neo-con literature such as the project for new American century and conservative papers and blogs? have you ever heard of Noam Chomsky? The Propaganda Model? do you ever watch democracynow.org
3. Do you support the teachings of Martin Luther Kingand by extension the fundamental teaching of most of the worlds religions? Or would you side with the government and corporate media that turned against MLK once he universalized his critique of the injustices being perpetrated around the world?

1) May 2004: 87 percent express little or no confidence in US coalition forces; 92 percent view coalition forces as occupiers, rather than liberators or peace keepers. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA).