unpatriotized history:

It was the US that was attacking; if the US takes over someone else's country and sets itself up as their dictator and proceeds to slaughter all of the citizens who don't submit, and then they make an attempt to resist, and the US slaughters people, that's not the US "retaliating". You can't be retaliating when you are the aggressor.

unpatriotized history:

The US is attacking Iraq, and the Iraqis are trying to resist US rule.

unpatriotized history:

The Americans are the ones attacking someone else in their own homes and killing anyone who doesn't pretend to submit.

unpatriotized history:

The US is the one attacking the Iraqi citizens in their own homes. They are resisting, not attacking. The US is not retaliating.

unpatriotized history:

Those who oppose the US project in Iraq are violating the crime and opposing the criminals.

unpatriotized history:

It is the US that is the criminal for making itself dictator of Iraq and forcing any Iraqi citizens who refuse to submit into hiding. The criminal terms should be used for the US, not for the Iraqi citizens.

unpatriotized position:

An objective news article would not identify with either the attackers (the US) or the defenders (the Iraqis); an objective news source, which is what this text self-identifies as, would not take a side. And of course no normal person (objective or not) would take the side of the guilty aggressor (in this case the US), as this text does.

unpatriotized position:

An objective news source would not identify with or against anyone's fire. And no sane person would identify with the aggressor's fire but not with that of the citizens who were trying to resist the aggressor's attack.

unpatriotized history:

The US project is itself an act of supreme violence. The US is the aggressor, the conqueror, and is combing the country killing all of the citizens who don't submit, whereas the resistance actions of the Iraqi citizens are within their own home. The US is also the violent one in this exact event. Even the words of the US soldier quoted in this article describe what is according to any ordinary definition a policy of terrorism against the citizens of Iraq:

"'This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them,' said Lt. Col. Steven Russell, commander of the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment."

But of course we don't need to read this to know that the US project in Iraq is itself an attack, a conquest, an act of foreign rule over the citizens of Iraq, and it would be propagandistic to evaluate the way the US carries out the project without first pointing out the nature of the project itself, regardless of how it is carried out.

unpatriotized history:

The US wants its own warplanes to be able to kill Iraqi citizens with even more impunity than they already enjoy.

unpatriotized history:

The US project in Iraq is a gainful act of conquest and domination that is in the US's interests. Iraq was a desirable prize that the US had wanted to take for a long time.

unpatriotized history:

Peacekeeping troops keep the peace between two sides. If troops from other countries go to Iraq to help the US with its project there, they are helping the US, which is not only not peacekeeping, but is exactly the opposite of peacekeeping. Taking a side means you are not peacekeeping, but taking the attacker's side against the people who are staying in their own home takes you even farther in the opposite direction, and then to use a state military against people who have no state military is about as far from peacekeeping as you can imagine. The US is the attacker, and the Iraqis are not. The US is using its state military to try to kill the citizens of Iraq, who don't have a military at all, but are merely trying to resist by using what weapons they can. If other countries send their troops to Iraq to help the US, they are doing the same thing.

unpatriotized history:

The huge numbers of Iraqis who already sharply oppose the US presence in Iraq are Iraqis.

unpatriotized history:

If they go to help the US in Iraq, they are attacking, not peacekeeping. Peacekeeping means keeping the peace between two sides. If troops from other countries go to Iraq to help the US with its project there, they are helping the US, which is not only not peacekeeping, but is exactly the opposite of peacekeeping. Taking a side means you are not peacekeeping, but taking the attacker's side against the people who are staying in their own home takes you even farther in the opposite direction, and then to use a state military against people who have no state military is about as far from peacekeeping as you can imagine. The US is the attacker, and the Iraqis are not. The US is using its state military to try to kill the citizens of Iraq, who don't have a military at all, but are merely trying to resist by using what weapons they can. If other countries send their troops to Iraq to help the US, they are doing the same thing.