Peace plans

One of my iraki friends remarked, everyone should start blogging peace plans.
So here is my take. Beforehand i tell you i was trying to compose a post on al jazeera on " what will the future bring to irak and what will stabilise it".

Not a simple post but i had a nice answer: always discontinuing a occupation stabilised a region.

After that it got tricky though. Because after that future will bring irak corruption and partiality. Bias and neglect most probably. Next to that
the same patriotism that the usians so much admire, would turn the now supposed terrorists in perfect buddys for the regular usian.
So you might wonder if having nationalists from US and UK fight nationalists from Irak is a bad thing. They will probably start hurting other people worse when they quit harrasing another.

That is all very lightly thought, i admit, the thought of innocent victims is very strong when i write a thing like this. Why innocent victims? It can ofcourse be an excuse, but else? I thought this: Basicly when usian nationalist fight iraki fanatics (nationalists) both partys end up frustrated. They have their racist kicks but that besides they are shooting their buddys. Their fellow-genocidals, fellow-patriots, fellow-fanatics, fellow-nationalists.

I think this causes part of the targetting of innocents. I don't get to the peace plan part much. But it could be essential to first understand what is actually going on, what is actually invoking the violence.

So actually the whole world wide dillema of nationalism and xenofobism is intertwined in the iraki situation? And there can never be peace before the world learns it's lesson? Perhaps.. it does seem so. It is either that or the oil running out.

This is why i find it so hard to say anything about peace in irak, to have a proposal. It all seems moot, irrealist. People pulling the ropes don't have the spiritual qualitys to achieve such a thing. You can't ask the irakis to press forward their work under humiliation, exploit.

I very much think US should leave, the sooner the better. Being prepared for war, is being prepared for genocide. No militairy procedure can change that.
If violence between irakis need be so gross, wich i doubt, let them genocide another, no reason to start genocide yourself.

Obviously the west will be to blame for the forthcoming crisis, it sparked it after all. But somehow i have the strange suspicion that the more provocating and attrocious ,'big booms' , events will quickly halt as soon as the US army leaves. Perhaps then that is why regions stabilise after an occupation leaves. It would not surprise me.

But is this realist? Me, i don't know. When this was all just plan and saddam was still in charge in irak (a situation of btw. rather nightmarish proportion for eg. shias in the south) i already suspected the US would go to stay. I even found out the vietnam oil was gone when the US left. Started looking from some suspect rhetorics.

No it was a biggest worry, and i have vocalised (perhaps written in some now censored place) my doubts about the intend to leave afterwards. Ofcourse in the face of total neglicence i have been asked what the iraki would think of it, and i told people they would not like to be occupied. That after you don't lift your militairy presence you perform an occupation, from the others point of view.

So the question arises, if not all that i say and write may lead to nothing.
I may tell and predict this now, but have people been wanting to see what was the reality before? So what will truth help now?
Tell me if you know.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have also written a beautifull story, I'll post it, but my mum said it should include "she's" from the first line, and the guys in the first line were all bad guys;) so i have a problem.

Talking about bad guys i read one of the plays of this guy cheung. It is not very amusing or a very interesting story, but it describes a complex and unsolvable problem for the main person. With a bad end.
theoretically the guy must have had a some experience at around 12-13 that made him feel irreversibly betrayed, it may have been a usual trauma, or just discrimination.

Another thing that is obscure is there are no transcripts of his most recent writings, just some cretology lifted out of context. That he is unsatisfied with the standards on the school eg. is obvious but the why's are kept out of view.
(probs. discrimination innit?)

Lastly there are efforts to keep his use of 'anti-depressivica' out of the picture.
An unreasonable statue since his expression is obviously so doped that he must have been under strong influence of these medicines, that make you much more vague and inhuman then natural drugs.