How is this different from the U.S. administration of the Philippines for decades? Make no mistake, that was imperialism, pure and simple.

What about what ordinary Iraqis want? Or is self-determination of peoples to go the way of collective security and deterrence under the neocons’ bull-headed incompetence and mismanagement?

“US, Iraq deal sees long-term US presence.”

That is not imperialistic. Everyone who is sane knows that the USA cannot and should not leave Iraq immediately. Furthermore, military bases in Iraq (no more imperialistic than bases in Korea, or in Europe during the Cold War and even still now) make good sense, especially given Iran’s misconduct these days. What we see with this agreement can at worst be a selling out (with implied disgrace of the USA, Yet Again) of the Maliki government to the USA to stay alive. (A more moral and sane view would be simply to say this act rationalizes and accepts, if begrudgingly, a hard fact of reality in Iraq and the Middle East.)

I stand by my previous comment.

There are ample indications the term fits perfectly.

Consider the 14 hard-site bases, at least one with the longest runway in the Mideast, last time I read about it, built by the U.S. in Iraq. The bases’ design and existence are clear indicators of an intention to maintain a large military presence there indefinitely.

Consider the world’s-largest U.S. embassy just built in Baghdad. It’s another indication of an intention to play a major role in Iraq’s civilian and commercial affairs for a very long time.

Consider Alan Greenspan’s blatant acknowldgement that Iraq’s oil was/is a main — maybe the main — reason for Bush and Cheney’s intention from the beginning of their administration to invade Iraq.

I wish for my country’s sake that the imperialism charge could be blown off as being absurd. Unfortunately, the facts are what they are.

Whether his’s a Mother Theresa or a Bill Kristol is beside the point.
Rather than throwing words like ‘imperialist’ around, which only serve to inflame instead of rectify, I would respect him if were to simply highlight, say, the plight of Iraqi refugees.

We;ve had quite enough of that sort of language passing for rational commentary, thank you very much.
He is copying Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil;’ rhetoric. only the target being different.
I don’t like it when Bush does it, and I don’t like when anyone else does it.
A body count does not define a war, BTW. By that measure, WWII was a drastic mistake.

I opposed the war from the beginning. That does not give me or anyone else license to hurl stupid eptaphs around. If we are to get through this mess, cool heads and rathional language must remain the coin of the debate realm.

From The Times
October 6, 2007
Archbishop: Iraq far worse than acknowledged
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has launched a renewed attack on the war in Iraq and called for “urgent attention” to stabilise the country.

Dr Williams, speaking after a visit to Syria last week, said the “terrible damage” wreaked on the region by the war in Iraq was far worse than had so far been acknowledged.

Dr Williams’ comments, in an interview with the BBC, came after he met Iraqi refugees in Syria, many of them still in fear for their lives. Only last month, a new survey claimed that up to 1.2m people might have died because of the conflict.

Dr Williams said any military action against Syria or Iran that would further destabilise the region would be “criminal, ignorant… and potentially murderous folly.”

More Lefty Mother Theresa than ranting from an Ivory Tower.

Second, the question of the day has long passed from why-we-went-in to how-to-get -out. If the archibishop had any insights to share on what is relevant today, I might be more tolerant.

Both the Archibishop and the Pope strike me as being like bystanders at a catastrophic accident offering useless homilies instead of genuine help or solace.

Consistent Ethic of Life

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html

VATICAN CITY — Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a “crime against peace.”

Now isn’t this appeaser being cannonised or considered for sainthood?

In particular, I’ve lost patience with those who define themselves by defining the US in a negative light. It’s almost as if they have no will of their own to define their own policies and would hardly exist if the US didn’t exist.

The archibisop would do better to spend a few thoughts on Britain’s own internal and international problem. There are quite a number of those, beginning with the changing demographic of its population.
Any words of wisdom as it relates to your actual congregants, archibishop?

Let’s face it, the British Empire was nothing more or less than a vampire, sucking the life out of it’s colonies and less powerful nations until one by one they finally managed to dislodge it’s fangs.

So, instead of trying to find a way to become more relevant in the world, the leader of the Anglican church decided to become a policy work.