Does the BBC intentionally court people with the IQ of goldfish? I only ask because that seems to be the only reason to ask a question like these:

Does unrest harm Iraq government?
[...]
Will the bombing cause problems for Iraq’s new government? Does it increase pressure on Iraq’s politicians? Can the partial government provide stability and halt insurgent attacks?

There is, in that mix, precisely one intelligent question, and by the time the reader gets to it, they’ve already been insulted by the first three. Is there any expectation that someone might guess that bombings and unrest would be good for the new government? Or, perhaps, that Iraqi politicians might see the bombings as liberating exercises in crowd control?

A newspaper only asks questions like this, inviting reader commentary, when they want to elicit a very specific response. It’s almost as if they are actively recruiting for the Democratic Underground types who might see some greater meaning in answering the questions. And those Democratic Underground types are more than happy to play along.

By the UN’s own definition, you cannot have a fair election in a country that is occupied by a foreign power; so since there was no fair election, the government that came of it is illegitimate. The unrest does not harm the Iraqi government because a legitimate government has yet to be established.
John D Morgan, Chicago, USA

Luckily, there are a strong-willed few who plow through and offer up something deeper than the average Beeb journalist is used to dealing with.

Self-rule is a process, not an event. It takes years to repair a country that has been in a cruel dictatorship for decades.
Tammy, Boston, USA

Sadly, to get to the good bits, you have to wade through the inane.

This isn’t a government, it is a group of puppets doing what Bush tells them. Get the us military out and let them take care of their country.
Randy, Colton, OR, USA

The BBC is asking a stupid question (and if you read through the responses, getting much of the same in return) instead of asking the right questions. Obviously bombings and the tension in trying to establish a constitution is making the actual governing of Iraq more difficult--that isn’t an issue open for debate.

Here’s a set of better questions:

1. Do the terrorist attacks, aimed more at Iraqi citizens and leadership than coalition soldiers, further the goals of the terrorists or do they actually act to solidify opposition and lose sympathy with more moderate citizens throughout the Middle East?
2. Regardless of the difficulties, are we seeing a good trend in security and the formation of government?
3. Considering the loss of life, the monetary cost, and the length of the occupation thus far, have our efforts in Iraq been worth the considerable price?
4. Are our efforts in Iraq helping or hindering our influence with other nations in the region?

These are serious and reasonable questions. What the BBC passed as a conversation starter was foolishness; that there are actually intelligent and useful comments is less a tribute to the journalists at the BBC and more a praise of the serious-minded people who want to answer something deeper than “If there are bad things happening is that a bad thing?”

Read their comment thread.