" Kill! Kill! Kill!"

Anttech

Im feel the same way everytime I have the misforutune of having to read one of your one liner comebacks

Hurkyl

Then you should treat me the way you expect me to treat you.
(You can have the last word in this exchange of you want -- I'm done with it)

Anttech

I have yet to see you actually add something positive to the part of PF, so excuse me if I think your contributions are weak at the best of times......

Bilal

I do call it insurgency; it is resistance against foreign occupation. As person who lived all my life under Israeli occupation, I can say that resistance has bad actions also. Simply, because none can control a nation under foreign occupation including their national leaders, therfore bad people also join the resistance by their unaccepted tactics. Every national resistance through history, e.g. American Revolution or the resistance against the German and Japanese in 2WW made mistakes... the same as Iraqi resistance. The difference between these revolutions and Iraqi resistance is that the Pentagon controls completely the propaganda.

Colin Powell admitted that all what he said to justify this war in UN is lies, so this war already immoral …. And after Abu Gharib and Falluja massacres , the picture become clear.

USA government is looking now for reasons to attack Syria and Iran. Furthermore they had already plans to invade their alliance (Egypt and Saudi Arabia). Their strategy in ME is based on spreading fear among hundreds millions of people who do not want to see the destruction of their countries as what happen in Iraq. I will not tell you examples from history, but you can read some books about the history of Europe in 20th century and to check who is the closest to Bush and his team.

I think you remember what Bush said last year after establishing the new Iraqi goverment …. Suppose Iraq become stable (by force), do you think that will make people to forget the (shock and awe or picture of Abu Gharib)? It is not just about actions, it is the complete strategy which based on imperialism, violence and aggression.

Hurkyl

This is the idealization to which I was referring in my opening post. It's more than resistance against foreign occupation.

Its core activity is a war of attrition against the local authorities and military. (Yes, it appears to me that this is even more pervasive than fighting against the occupying forces)

Another key part of their strategy is aggression against representatives of other nations.

And yet another key part is terrorism against the local populace, attempting to dissuade them from doing things like vote, signing up to join the local police forces, working at foreign-owned establishments, or even just interacting with the occupying forces.

It is these activities that lead me to say that this is not a resistance against foreign occupiers.

If it was just against the Americans and local authorities, I could see a reasonable argument that it's a fight against occupation. The argument gets stretched very thin when you account for the violence against third-party nations. Once you consider the general campaign against the local populace, IMHO it doesn't seem very reasonable at all.

No, I don't. I'm serious when I say I don't listen to the media.

No, but that's entirely irrelevant. I want Iraq to "become stable (by force)" because I don't want to see it to fall into civil war.

I'll repeat my question:
What do you think the situation would be like if there were no occupiers -- just the current Iraqi government and the militas?

I think it would be civil war, and that would be worse than it is now. I have the hope that Iraq can "become stable (by force)", and then the U.S. could leave Iraq without it falling into civil war.

Gokul43201

It seems you are making the assumption - or are arguing from the point of view - that "the current govt and the militias" is a better situation that what Iraq had before the occupation.

Also, your argument is indicative that you hold the opinion that it is okay to achieve a "better situation" through means that involve the sacrifice of the right (lives) of some number of people.

Hurkyl

I do have that point of view, and my conviction is probably due to the people who I think might disagree have been avoiding this question.