Do the Iraqi people have a right to resist foreign invaders?

[JackRiddler]

Enough of the rhetoric.

Do the Iraqi people have a right to resist foreign invaders?

[atreides1]

1. I say yes!!!!

[bdamomma]

2. yes, that is why they want us out!!!!

[Richard Steele]

3. Of course. EVERYONE has that right.

[madokie]

4. I would say they are and should as anyone would

[Double T]

5. ABSOLUTELY!!!! Just the way ANY other nation that had foreign........

invaders occupying THEIR country would act or respond. It is time for 'US' to leave Iraq.

[shadowknows69]

6. I was just thinking of posting on this same thing Jack

We need a brave Democrat to call this what it is. An illegal occupation, after a liberation, if they must, of a sovereign country. OF course Iran is aiding the insurgents attack our troops. Where else do they have to go? If China somehow managed to occupy the US we'd be begging Cuba to send us coconuts to throw at them. Its a pretty sad commentary when the Iraqi people will even turn to some of their oldest enemies to try to eject the parasite known as U.S. Imperialism. A resistance uses whatever tools they have. The people fighting US, and I'm not talking about sectarian shit, are people who don't want us in their country anymore because we've defiled their lands for too long and they know ultimately all we want is their resources.

[pampango]

7. They have the right to fight our military. They do not have the

right to target Iraqi civilians, with car bombs, suicide bombers and death squads. It may be an effective resistance strategy in terms of creating anger at the Americans and generating political pressure to get them to withdraw, but it is not morally defensible. The French resistance did not pursue a strategy of blowing up French civilians in order to put pressure on the German army to leave. They targeted the Germans. (Not that it worked as well as the Iraqi resistance's strategy seems to be working.)

[no_hypocrisy]

8. As a sovereign nation, it always has the right, and the world has

an obligation to support a country trying to repel an invasion and/or occupation. Where is the U.N.? Where is the EU? Where is NATO?

And I don't consider the present government in Iraq (Malakhi) to be more than quislings to the Iraqi citizens.

[shadowknows69]

9. Is it enabling the enemy?

If the enemy is us?

[The2ndWheel]

13. Do you know what NATO is?

The only reason anyone listens to the UN is because it has the US military as its police force.

What is the EU supposed to do? They're barely organized politically, let alone militarily. Plus European countries spend their tax money on social programs because they have basically the same interests as the US(see NATO), and our military keeps the global engine running.

The only thing stopping this will be whether or not money can still be made, and even if it ends, it'll just change shape into some other conflict(Vietnam/Iraq).

[JackBeck]

10. Yup.

Just as much as Americans fight for equality at home.

It should be interesting to see what happens in Iraq once we finally do leave. Especialy when it comes to establish Iraqi civil rights between the Shia, Sunni and Kurds. Since the Shia and Sunni soo get along.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

65. It probably won't be good

The fact is, we have soo screwed that country. But the origin was with the invasion. See post 11, last couple of paragraphs, reparations idea: would that work? Would it have worked for just $30 bil before the invasion?

[JackRiddler]

11. So what are our rights - the Americans and the British?

You and your government have no right to maintain a Green Zone. Your government has no right to tell the Iraqis anything, let alone write their laws and sell their property to your country's corporations. You and your government have no right to pick the winners of the Iraqi civil war, the one that your government intentionally started. You have no right to say that your government, the arsonist, should stay in the house that it burned down, so as to "fix what it broke."

Your taxes as a nation -- more accurately, your line of credit for deficit spending -- paid for the destruction of the Iraqi nation.

Most of you were against it in principle, but you still paid for it. (The "you" in these words includes me.)

Not only did your government lie about its reasons for the invasion. Not only are your elected leaders making almost no move to hold that government accountable for these lies, for the war of aggression they launched, or for the crimes against humanity and mass murder they committed.

Most of you still lie to yourselves that if only this government had been competent, the situation in Iraq would not be so horrible. Most of you are now accepting the latest lie fed to you from the top, that we had noble goals and we tried our best, by golly, but if those Iraqis want to snub our favors and kill each other, well then the whole mess is their problem and we should leave them to it.

In fact, failing the original war scenario that the Iraqi people would greet the invaders with "flowers strewn in our paths" -- which even the neocons understood was unlikely -- civil war was the inevitable Plan B. Civil war was the intended result of American government policy. Remaining ignorant about this is beneath your dignity as a thinking citizen.

Bombing the Iraqi nation's infrastructure so that they no longer have electricity or water and are helpless and dependent on the invaders was the plan. The bombings from the air, the tortures continue - do you hear anything about it? Destroying the ancient cultural treasures, flattening the peoples' identity and killing the flower of youth was the intent. Arming the death squads of the Interior Ministry was the policy, overseen by US government men who were old hands at such crimes. Running the Iraqi intellectual classes out of their homes may not have been intended to the extent that it has happened -- but to the planners of the invasion and occupation, it is a welcome effect that the country now lacks a secular nationalist political class.

You and your government do have a right to leave as quickly as it is logistically possible to transport all troops away from Iraq -- and to do so under the cover of a ceasefire. This would be the best way to support the US troops -- to stop ordering them to be complicit in a criminal war.

You have a right and a duty to offer reparations -- a good start would be to reassign the hundreds of billions of dollars your government has budgeted for continuing the rape of Iraq for another two years.

In offering reparations, you and your government have a right to put certain humanitarian, logical and just conditions on these. You even have a right and a duty to use the reparations as an incentive to the hostile parties in Iraq to form a unity government, cease hostilities, and hold a genuine democratic election. (Said reparations to be placed in a trust monitored by third parties so that you don't abuse that function, as your government predictably might.)

You and your government have a duty to pay for the reconstruction of the nation you shattered, but you have no right to profit from that reconstruction.

You as citizens have a duty to fight your own regime until those responsible for this crime are brought to justice, and the historical record is thrown open and reclaimed on behalf of the truth. You have a duty and a need to restore your own republic and its constitution, and to rediscover the principles outlined in your Declaration of Independence -- a document that makes clear why the Iraqi people have every right to resist the foreign invaders, until the day the foreign invaders have left their soil.

[TheBaldyMan]

33. a couple of points ...

The current administration stole two presidential elections in a row, to label the American people as complicit in the crimes of Shrub and his puppetmasters is a slander on all of them.

If the government had been less incompetent there wouldn't have been a war in the first place.

I agree that the co-alition should withdraw as fast as humanly possible. Before, during and after this withdrawal the US should go to the rest international community and beg for forgiveness as well as help in remedying the situation. It is long overdue. Having said that, the current administration will have to be removed from office - root and branch - before any of this is remotely likely.

[JackRiddler]

35. There are levels of complicity...

I think I worded it carefully. Insofar as they pay taxes, the American people pay for this crime. They are victims of their regime, at the same time that they are complicit in it.

Do you really believe we've risen up to the challenge and done everything we could have possibly done (even within the law!) to stop or end this crime?

[Sterling]

75. "If the government had been less incompetent there wouldn't have been a war in the first place."

True that.

[gravity]

70. I think you aren't accurately viewing the situations

While I agree that America did a lot of wrong things, and should never attacked in the first place, you aren't considering the situation in Iraq right now.

Its not time to argue if it was right invading Iraq in the first place, it happened, now we have a new situation. There is a civil war going on in Iraq now, not just the resistance to our precence. If we leave right now, the civil could explode millions more civilians and disrupt the whole balnce of power in the middle east.

We should worry about the right thing to do, not who was right. People have a right to defend US, but we have a right to do whats best fore the wellbeing of the Iraqi people. I don't know what it is, but you don't either, its a complex problem. What is really needed is competent leaders and experts who are more concerned about the wellbeing of Iraq than being right.

[LynnTheDem]

81. Ah yes, the ol' "white man's burden" bullshit.

"We know what's best for them stoopid little brown people".

[gravity]

136. I want peace in Iraq

If pulling out of Iraq would bring peace, I'm all for it. Given the current situation however, pulling out could make Iraq much worst off resulting in far more deaths, which I'm against.

[JackRiddler]

92. The invasion caused the civil war.

The occupation cannot solve it.

The arsonist cannot claim a right to remain in the house he burned until he fixes it.

Read the last 5 paragraphs of post 11 - our duty is to get out and pay reparations. Reparations can serve as the incentive to end the civil war, which the US is responsible for.

[pampango]

105. I would argue that the invasion created the conditions that

enabled a civil war to occur. I don't believe that Sunni and Shiite said, "The Americans are here. Let's start killing each other until they leave." Rather it was the removal of Saddam's overwhelming security forces that repressed sectarian tensions and the political power vacuum that resulted which enabled factions among the Sunni and Shiite to begin the violence.

It is not just a semantic difference ("caused the civil war" versus "created the conditions..."). If the continuing violence against civilians is due to the occupation, "the Americans are here", then logically, if we leave, conditions should improve significantly. On the other hand, if the attacks on civilians are due to Sunni-Shiite competition for power and the weakness of security forces, the civilian slaughter is not likely to improve with the removal of some security forces (our troops.)

Of course, removing our troops will eliminate US casualties, so there is a tremendous reason for a quick withdrawal, regardless of what happens to Iraqi civilians.

[JackRiddler]

115. No

It was the American creation of an Iraqi system that cuts out the Sunni and the arming of Iraqi death squads to stop the insurgency (in part known as the "Interior Ministry") that started the civil war.

On what basis or legitimacy does the US claim a right to pick a winner in the Iraqi civil war?

Withdraw. Offer $175 billion in reparations to repair Iraqi infrastructure, education and health. (This is the budget just proposed for the next two years worth of war.) Place the condition that hostilities cease and a unity government is formed with peaceful elections and a per-capita formula for distributing the funds, overseen by an international agency. Pay the money into a trust controlled by agreed-upon third parties now, and let them decide when the conditions have been met.

Throw open the historical record. Prosecute those responsible for lies while in office, waging unprovoked war of aggression, and crimes against humanity.

[pampango]

125. Yes.

If I agreed that the US was doing all that it could to keep the Sunni out of the government, I would agree with your conclusion. While "purple fingers" may not be the best way to choose a government during an occupation, it is no worse than the process followed in many dictatorships in the region and around the world.

The country is 60% Shia and given the importance of loyalty to your religious sect, it would seem that the current government has more legitimacy than one imposed by Sunni fighters, partially supported by surrounding Sunni dictatorships. Should the Iraqi government include representation for and protection for the Sunni and the Kurds? Sure.

[theboss]

173. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that we chose the victor in a civil war

The Shia out-number the Sunni something like 3 to 1 AND control the capital simply in terms of location. It's not hard to figure out who is going to win. The fact that the Sunni simply refused to participate in the elections at first gave the Shia an even bigger share of the government than they would have had with equal participation.

Once the US started pushing for "democracy," this current outcome was inevitable.

[JackRiddler]

179. In terms of location it's the capital is in the Sunni heartland.

The Sunni were frozen out by the perverse way in which the election was set up (taking all of Iraq as a single election district).

[theboss]

180. I thought the city itself was majority Shia...I could be wrong

Wasn't the reason behind making Iraq one district the fact that there was no census?

I always thought the bigger issue was the fact that there was no way to fairly give the Sunni what they wanted: a share of power larger than their population.

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. Is signing American oil contracts "doing what's best for the wellbeing of Iraqi people"?

[gravity]

134. I said that we NEED to do whats best for their wellbeing

I disagree with almost every action the US has performed in Iraq so far, and thought the invasion was illegal. I'm just saying that we should focus on the situation in Iraq and not ourselves for once.

[ima_sinnic]

110. yeah, that obscenely huge US embassy being built for the "wellbeing of Iraq"

If BushCo is so concerned about the Iraqi people, why are they building a giant embassy--no, a luxury resort, really--that will be bigger than Vatican City, with a staff of 1,500?

Our tax dollars are paying for that--the emperor's castle--along with the rest of the atrocities, mayhem, and plundering. Yet we who foot the bill never seem to get a real statement of the charges on it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0708-11.htm

[endarkenment]

12. yes of course they do.

our invasion and occupation were and are war crimes. The iraqis have every right to resist.

[haymark]

17. Iraqis have rights

They have learned how to exercise them too. They are busy driving out the invaders by suicide bombing fellow Iraqis. Iraqi freedom fighters are vandalizing the electricity grid, water and sewer lines. What a great plan!

[JackRiddler]

91. How do you know who is doing these things?

From the same government and the same media who lied you into this invasion?

Does the US occupation have a side in the Iraqi "civil war"?

Should we exterminate all who resist the occupation and the "Iraqi" government?

PS - The Iraqi power grid was destroyed by US bombs.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. For Sake Of Accuracy, We Are No Longer Foreign Invaders. Our Presence Is Requested.

Therefore, my answer would be that in 2003, yes, but currently, no.

Currently, there is a government elected by the Iraqi people and that government has requested our presence and intervention. If the people vote on a referendum demanding our exit or the Iraqi government demands we leave and we don't, then I'd say the answer would once again be yes. But as it stands right now, we are not foreign invaders anymore but instead we are now a requested presence.

This holds true regardless of how much of a sham we may consider the elected government to be or the process used to implement it. The only relevance is that at this time Iraq has some form of elected government and that government has requested our continued presence.

[Jacobin]

21. Gee

Whaddya think the guy who is in Iraq's 'parliament' who was convicted in one of the trade center bombings would say?

The 'elections' were a scam. The parliament is a US puppet that OPERATES IN THE GREEN ZONE.

They are no more representative of Iraqis than the U.S. congress.

BTW, 80% of Iraqs want us gone right now.

Over 60% SUPPORT the idea of attacking US troops.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. In Spite Of All That, We Are Still Currently Not Foreign Invaders.

The fact is that Iraq DOES have a government right now and there WAS an election, no matter how fucked up we feel the entire thing was and is.

As long as there is an operating government in Iraq and that government requests our presence and intervention, then we quite simply in factual reality ARE NOT foreign invaders any longer.

I understand completely that the majority of Iraqi's want us out. That does not give them the right to kill our troops and murder innocent civilians. Just like we do here, they should write to their lawmakers, protest in the streets, put whatever pressure that they possibly can on the government to change course and kick us out, or maybe even take the bull by the horns and work hard at being able to actually protect the populace themselves by standing up and owning the responsibility, etc..

I feel for the Iraqis and want our troops home ASAP too. But my strong feelings against our presence there has nothing to do with the fact that we are not foreign invaders anymore. Therefore, the premise of the OP is flawed and moot.

[Jacobin]

30. Um, they should "protest in the streets?"

I don't know what to say to you. I really don't.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. The Point Is That The Iraqi Government Welcomes Our Presence And Therefore We Are Not In Fact

foreign invaders any longer.

That's a fact, whether you like it or not. My point was that under the OP's premise of do the Iraqi citizens have a right to kill us, my answer is no, they don't. They should absolutely take whatever civil means they can to pressure their government to kick us out, as we are doing here as well. They could also condemn the violence to begin with and rise up to serve in the police force so that they can actually enforce the security of their nation on their own. That would be the biggest accomplishment, because if the Iraqis had a competent security force of their own there would no longer be any cop-out available as to why our presence is needed to begin with.

But lord knows there are a brazillion reasons why shit is so fucked up there right now. Our presence is only making it monumentally worse. No one's arguing about that. But this discussion was based solely on the premise that we are foreign invaders. Regardless of how against the war I am, I'm still going to be up front and honest with the reality that we are no longer foreign invaders but instead there at the request of the Iraqi government.

[Bonobo]

73. Incorrect Capitalization Does Not An Authority Make.

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. The Quisling government welcomed Germany's presence in Norway

Therefore they must have had a "right" to be there.

[SOS]

126. The "Iraqi Government" left

The Parliament hasn't had a quorum since November.
The palimentarians moved to Kuwait, Dubai and London some time ago.
The constant death threats were too much for the majority of the "government".

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. "They should write to their lawmakers" - you mean the American consultants rewriting the oil law?

That is why we are there and will remain there. To keep the oil in the hands of US firms.

[ima_sinnic]

111. wow. the iraqi people should "write to their lawmakers"

sometimes the remarks I see on this board are so idiotic, so COMPLETELY clueless, I have to wonder how their author can even function at such a low level of comprehension of reality.

Now you're going to tell us that's what you'd do if, say, just for the sake of argument, China invaded the U.S. to topple our very own dictator? And let's say that the government that China orchestrated into existence "asked" the Chinese to stay long after the dictator had been eliminated. I guess you'd be happy to go along with that and just write a little ole e-mail to your congressman if you didn't like the ruined state of your existence and the fact that your whole family had been slaughtered needlessly?

[In Truth We Trust]

183. Having been illegally invaded prior to the installation of a puppet gov't means that said puppet gov

ernment is in itself illegitimate and therefore every form of subsequent "legalese' implemented is illegitimate. The invasion was and remains illegal according to international law. Tghe Iraqi people have every right to defend their sovereignity and to refuse to cooperate with any installed gov't of the foreign invaders.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

193. Obviously We Are In Wholehearted Disagreement And Each Have Our Own Logic And Reasoning.

Guess we'll just leave it at that.

[The Stranger]

26. An occupation government requires the occupier to keep it in power over the occupied people.

So of course it is going to "request" the presence of the occupier. And, of course, that request is meaningless to the debate.

[Sterling]

76. I no longer think the Iraq gov is a puppet regime of the US

recent events should make that perfectly clear. The Iraqi gov is working with insurgents and engaged in crimes against the Iraqi people. The government there is using us, not the other way around it seems. It is however the closest thing the Iraqi's have had to a real democracy. What does that say about their society? They would rather kill each other than work together to have a free and peaceful society.

[The Stranger]

117. The Iraqi government and the insurgents ARE IRAQI PEOPLE.

They cannot engage in "crimes against the Iraqi people" -- THEY ARE THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

And they do not want the military occupation to continue, as you well admit. Which means that they have the inalienable right to defend themselves.

[Sterling]

133. No they are a faction of the Iraqi people.

Any faction that is participating in these crimes is not acting in the interest of the "Iraqi" people. How can they make such a claim when they are intentionally murdering civilians? The Government to this point has asked us to stay. SO you are incorrect n that issue.

[The Stranger]

171. No, they're IRAQI PEOPLE, and any disputes they have are internal; U.S. shouldn't exacerbate discord

in order to prop up its Vichy occupation government and strengthen its occupation.

Your position fails. The fact that U.S. citizens murder one another does not authorize Europe to invade and stop them from doing it.

[Sterling]

200. You have a serious distorted view of events.

You lose when you bring Nazi comparisons into the frey by default. Your over the top ridiculous rhetoric is hollow and out of touch with the facts. You obviously could give a shit about the people in Iraq that don't want to live under the thumb of religious militias. Normal Iraqi's are being forced to leave their country as refugees because they are n longer safe from their fellow Iraqi's in the area's they once lived. If you are a Sunni who lived in a Shia area you better get the fuck out or sooner or later you will be removed by force or removed from life altogether. These people were not forced out by our invasion but rather the terrorism of religious factions that have no honor or regard for human life and decency. You seem happy to live in some insane bubble in which you can believe the "noble insurgents" are "freedom fighters" fighting for the interests of the fellow Iraqi's.

You assume that Iraqi's are enjoying being murdered by the droves by the various factions of religious fanatics. To you the only "Iraqi people" are the ones whose interests are served by these attacks. Do you think the interests of most Iraqi's are being served by the terrorists factions murdering civilians daily? You really want to defend that shit?

You have some romantic notion that "the Iraqi people" are somehow united in their support for these killings. It's a ridiculous and embarrassing position, thank god you are not an elected Dem in office spewing this crap. When did you decide that the US was evil and could do no right? What lead you to feel the need to defend the actions of religious zealots bent on denying the Iraqi people any hope of peace and freedom?

[JackRiddler]

203. Agreed, the Nazi example serves little in this case...

Surely yes, the Iraqi people have no interest in being blown up by the fanatics among them, the majority surely don't want a Taliban state or probably even the Iranian system (remember, that was the ENEMY for 10 years, not so long ago, and most of the Iraqi Shi'ites supported the war).

You're evading a different question, however. What is it that the US policy is really doing now in Iraq? That's what I dispute in your views. The US forces are still (under orders) bombing targets from the air, taking "collateral damage," engaging in torture, imprisoning large numbers picked up at semi-random, invading homes, etc. They're supporting some of the religious militias (mostly Shi'a) against the others. The US armed the death squads.

Even given the worst case scenario: does the US have a right to determine which of the fanatic religious factions should triumph over the others?

And you still haven't answered: wouldn't the reparations-as-incentive plan make more sense (and save the US a lot of casualties) as a way of saving Iraqi society -- rather than parading around there pretending we're the good guys and we have any clue what we're doing other than being one of the groups who are shooting the place up? (See posts 11 - last part - and 115).

[theboss]

167. I think you are right on the mark

Maliki and the Shia are now the ones driving our action in Iraq. We are not driving theirs. They want us there specifically to provide the cover for their pogrom against the Sunni. Once that is completed, they will ask us to leave....and ultimately become the proxy state to Iran that everyone predicts.

I think there is a fairly brilliant rope a dope strategy at play here by Iran, by the way. We are exhausting ourselves to give them hegemony in the region.

[TheBaldyMan]

36. by your logic the US presence in Vietnam was OK.

that was a succession of puppet regimes that became increasingly alienated from the people they nominally represented.

Serious discussion is not helped by positing a deeply flawed legality for an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation.

Back in '91 Saddam Hussein could have paraded a Kuwaiti official who publically welcomed the security that thousands of Iraqi troops provided, most definitely, it would not be a justification for continued occupation of Kuwait.

The invasion and the subsequent occupation are both illegal. All attempted justifications for the presence of foreign troops keep running into international law. Even the post-hoc rubber stamp received from the UN is contrary to international law.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Fact: Iraq Has A Government, Albeit A Pathetic One. Fact: That Government Was Elected, Despite A

flawed process. Fact: That government requests our presence there and said when they no longer want us there it is their right to tell us to get the fuck out. Fact: At this time, they have not yet told us to get the fuck out. Fact: As long as these circumstances exist, we are no longer foreign invaders but instead invited foreign troops.

This does not mean it is right for us to be there, that we should remain there, that our premise for why we are there is honest, that we aren't there for our government's own selfish and criminal reasons or that we should've ever attacked a sovereign nation based on lies to begin with. It simply means that we are not foreign invaders any longer, but foreign security.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Iraq has a government, eh?

So did Vichy France.

[pampango]

56. Did the Germans conduct the same kind of bogus election in

France that we did in Iraq?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. I don't know.

I'd suspect the Germans were to busy to mock democracy.

[Sterling]

77. Were the French bombing each other

in an effort to get the Nazi's to leave so the could fight each other and divide the country up along religious and ethnic lines? It really is ridiculous to compare the occupation of Iraq with what the Nazi's were up to.

[pampango]

107. We might be in agreement.

There are many, many differences between our occupation of Iraq and the German occupation of France. Clearly the French resistance did not have a policy of blowing up French civilians either in a competition for post-German occupation political power in France or to create pressure on the Germans to end the occupation (I know it is pretty laughable that Hitler would have been sensitive to the deaths of French civilians).

I agree with you that, to that extent, it is ridiculous to compare the two occupations, but I don't quite understand how this relates to the elections that were held in Iraq and not in France.

[bananarepublican]

89. B4 coming to power Hitler only got 33% of the German people's vote!

Would any election held under Nazi occupation account for much? Purple fingers do not a democacy make.

[pampango]

106. Indeed, purple fingers do not a democracy make.

The corollary: Can't have a democracy without purple fingers.

[theboss]

174. The one thing I really don't criticize in Iraq is the election...aside from the timing of it

It's not like the Middle East is exactly bubbling over with fair and free elections. The sham election in Iraq is about 100 times more legitimate than any elections that have ever taken place among our dear friends the Saudis.

I'm still not sure that "democracy" is the outcome we want anyway.

Iraq, in general, makes my brain hurt.

[TheBaldyMan]

93. Fact:USA has a govt. Fact: Bush was also elected by a process proven fraudulent

This does not give the pResident carte-blanche. It does not give a mandate to the Bush regime.

You still haven't addressed my point about international law. By Nuremberg measures the war was illegal, it didn't become legal afterwards.

Similarly the occupation of Iraq is identical to the Vichy regime, a puppet government 'inviting' co-alition forces to stay does not make the occupation legal.

OMC on this point you are just plain wrong. Either that or the Geneva conventions mean nothing, international law means nothing and anyone can invade a country to instal a puppet government that invites in an army that is already there.

You couldn't be more wrong, it is the sort of bullshit with no basis in law or fact that the Bush admin is trotting out nearly everyday. They are being called on their BS and it may take time but the legal authorities will recognise it as such. I am not sure what the legal term for 'complete bull' is but that is what will be resolved.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. Sorry, But Say It All You Want; I Still Don't Agree With You.

Iraq has an elected government, period. It doesn't matter how flawed we think that process was. It is still an elected government. That government wants us there. We are therefore invited foreign security, not foreign invaders. You can argue this till you're blue in the face but that still won't alter my view on the facts as they stand.

I think twisting reality to claim we are currently still foreign invaders does nothing but weaken our positions to others about being against the war. There are so many valid arguments to make in reference to why we shouldn't be there any longer, but I don't consider twisting current facts to present us as foreign invaders to be one of them.

Not only in my opinion is it false in premise, in my opinion, but it also creates a perception that we are searching for justification for attacks on our troops. Sorry, but I'm just not going to do that.

The fact is, that there are many things contributing to the violence there. They are in a civil war, they have resistance groups that are trying to take power themselves, they have an utter lack of security forces to control the violence themselves, and they have insurgents/terrorists that are there solely for idealistic murder.

Yes, we should get the hell out asap. Yes, the Iraqi's need to step up to the plate and do whatever it takes to handle their own security and squash the violence. No, we are no longer foreign invaders. We are there as invited security by the elected government. But I don't care what that elected government requests, we still don't belong there.

[U4ikLefty]

143. You are the one twisting reality & refusing to answer questions.

Your idea that an invader can legitimately install a puppet regime & use the puppet's "authority" to give legal cover for a continued occupation is laughable.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

147. To Each Their Own Opinion.

I have mine, you have yours.

My opinion is as stated above. I don't think considering the Iraqi government as elected officials, even if due to a severely flawed process, is something that's laughable. I think it's just a different opinion than yours, which you obviously have trouble handling.

[TheBaldyMan]

153. If the Iraqi puppets asked the US to leave ...

would OMC dream up another non sequitur to justify a continued occupation? I wonder.

If the cheap ventriloquist act that passes for the Iraqi government did ask the US to leave how long before Big Oil got themselves another dummy?

[pampango]

181. For what it is worth, here is what happened in the Philippines.

I was in the Peace Corps there in the 1970's when the US had Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base. Clark was the biggest Air Force base outside of the US and Subic was the base of the Pacific Fleet.

Filipino nationalists all claimed that the the US would not leave those bases even if told to do so, because the bases could not be replaced anywhere in Asia. In the 1990's the Philippines government did tell us to leave and we did. Clark is now an international airport and Subic is a ship building center.

Of course, I don't know what will happen in Iraq, every such thing is different in terms of time, place and historical context.

[JackRiddler]

196. Doesn't compare

consider

- relative strategic and resource value of the two countries

- US under Bush has staked its fate and credibility as a military power and empire on Iraq.

AND it took all the way until the 1990s after the initial occupation and very bloody war more than 90 years earlier -- and the Marcos dictatorship, backed by the US. Finally, in the 1990s, when the focus was shifting elsewhere...

[bananarepublican]

144. Bush swindled two presidential elections in a row. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

146. Talk About A Non-Germane Response. Totally Irrelevant To This Discussion.

In fact, no idea why you even brought it up.

[bananarepublican]

155. Fact: Bush/Cheney Administration is a complete fraud. Fact: We the people are not legally...

... represented. Fact: Any decision Bush/Cheney make is illegal. Fact: Country is being run by sellouts. Need I go on?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

194. Fact: Your Arguments Have Very Little Relevance To This Debate. Try Harder.

[bananarepublican]

201. Think harder! Fraudulant administration sets up puppet Iraqi Government! n/t

[TheBaldyMan]

151. Illegal invasion + occupation = illegal occupation. n/t

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

192. I'm Laughing At You.

Just as I laugh at anybody who is so intellectually weak to use such brainless attacking tactics.

Seriously. I'm pointing my finger at you and laughing... heartily.

[theboss]

150. I actually sort of agree with you

And I think that we are missing the larger point. For every 5 Americans that are killed, 500 Iraqis are killed.

I don't see how Iraqis slaughtering other Iraqis equates to a resistance.

Those couching in some kinds of revolutionary terms are missing the point. The question is, what role does American have in a foreign civil war that it single-handidly created?

[JackRiddler]

157. See suggestion in posts 11 (last four para) and 115 - thanks

[Ani Yun Wiya]

37. So tell me the date that...

The "elected" government in Iraq issued citizenship papers to the foreign troops on their soil?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Your Post Made Zero Sense, With All Due Respect. Maybe You Need To Look Up The Definition Of

'invaders'.

Like I said, at one time we obviously were invaders of a sovereign nation. But now that Iraq has an elected government, regardless of how flawed a one it is, and that government requests our presence, we are no longer invaders whatsoever but are then simply foreign troops. Big damn difference.

Facts matter, for the record. Facts also trump emotions.

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. OperationMindCrime, you are factually incorrect about this -- see post #93. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

148. No, I'm Not 'Factually Incorrect' About This.

Furthermore, reply 93 had little factual information in it and was just simply more passionate opinion than anything else. Feel free to read my reply to it.

[pampango]

44. I think the poster's point was not that we were not "foreign", but

that our role changed from invader to security force, when the Iraqi government asked us to stay. (I don't think our troops are looking to become Iraqi citizens.) You may question the legitimacy of the "elected" government there (we do enough of that at DU regarding our own government), but by my estimation it is not less "legitimate" than many governments in the region (and around the world) that come to power by military coup or hereditary succession.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Exactly. Thanks.

My only complaint is with the false premise and false argument that we are still foreign invaders. I think it warps the debate in unproductive ways.

The problem as I see it is that in spite of the request for our presence, our presence is still doing more harm than good and there is not any legitmate reason for us to be there any longer. There is a civil war in which our troops have nothing to do with, and the violence that is not part of the civil war that is geared towards our troops is because there are those who want to overtake the new government and take power themselves. Whether they are correct or not in doing so is not relevant to the question of whether we are foreign invaders. In this context, the 'rebels'; so to speak; are fighting the government and the government's allies (our 'security' force). That still doesn't make us foreign invaders, but instead makes us allies of a government of which some are trying to overtake. The rest of the violence is simply due to insurgents and terrorist groups, who target us merely for being in the region at all, because of our past transgressions, and because quite simply we're Americans.

I think the real question here is even in spite of the Iraqi government's request, should we be there any longer. I say no. I say pull back, force the Iraqi's to be able to defend themselves, and then get us the fuck out. But calling us foreign invaders at this point merely muddies the arguments against the war with false premise and false rationalization.

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. "force the Iraqis to defend themselves" LOL -- where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah, Hillary and other people who don't have a moral objection to our presence.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. Why, They Shouldn't? As Long As They Can't, There's An Excuse For Our Being There.

It would seem based on your position on the war that you would want them to be trained to handle their own security asap so that there are no more excuses for our being there. Why on earth you're arguing against that extremely logical point is perplexing.

Do you think they should continue relying on us to do it for them rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing it themselves? Do you really?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. LOL

[Malikshah]

66. Let's take that accuracy one step further. Who appointed those

who would come up with the system of government by which people would be elected to officially request foreign presence on the soil.

The pot was poisoned with the invasion, CPA and beyond.

A democratic movement comes from within and from the ground up.

[MadHound]

140. Such naivete, the Iraqi government wasn't elected by the people,

It was installed by the Bush administration. It isn't a construct of the Iraqis, it is a construct of the US power elite who are currently ripping off the Iraqis. If the government was indeed of the Iraqi people as you claim, then why are so many in open revolt against it?

It wasn't an election any more than the past two presidential elections in America were. The thing is, many many Iraqis realized what a farce their elections were, and now want their country back, unlike the American sheeple who continue to chew their cud and watch American Idol.

Maliki is an American puppet, a member of the US backed Iraqi National Congress. He was picked, groomed, and handed the job. Sure, there were purple fingers and a great show. But there were also black box voting machines and much behind the scenes maneuvering in order to put into place the US candidate.

In fact, the Iraqi people consider their government so much of a sham that they are trying to get rid of it. I say we let them.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

152. Speaking Of Naivete,

That's exactly what I was just thinking as I read your post.

You frame the issue as if the violence there is primarily caused by a revolution to overthrow the government because the poor iraqi people feel unrepresented by them. That's as naive as anything I've ever heard.

The majority of violence is rooted in a civil war amongst themselves. Additional violence is from groups led by the power hungry who kill for sake of power and greed. Other violence is caused simply by terrorist organizations and outside insurgents who aim to murder, and the rest of the violence is towards our troops because of our presence.

Now the fact is, whether it leaves a damn bad taste in your mouth or not, that Iraq DID have a general election in which over 12 million Iraqis voted. It wasn't perfect, but it was controlled enough in terms of a rebuilding nation to count as an official government and as a globally recognized government. That government requests our presence there. That is inarguable. Their request of our presence makes us foreign security not foreign invaders. Regardless of that request, I still say we shouldn't be there. But even the Iraqis fighting to get rid of the government, as you say, are fighting against us because we are ALLIES of the government, not because we are foreign invaders.

So spare me your fucking condescension. The fact is I'm one of the only ones speaking the goddamn truth of the matter, whereas the others are just debating from passionate emotion.

You guys act like my saying we aren't foreign invaders but are instead are foreign security that still should not be there, hurts our cause somehow. Tell me: How exactly does this undermine our goal by me saying such? How does it warrant such passionate outrage from several of you here? Why does simply having that opinion that differs from your own piss some of you off so much?

That's probably it for me in this thread. Too much 'think exactly like I do or I'll attack' mentality in it.

[MadHound]

163. No, we're not asking you to "think exactly like I do" OMC, we're asking you to look at the truth

Yes, there is a civil war going on in Iraq, there is no denying that. Why is there a civil war going on over there? Because much of the population of Iraq considers their government to be illegal and illegit. Look at how the elections were conducted, look at how it was manipulated in order to bring about the desired (US) result. The Iraqi people actually are more responsive in this area than the US is. When the US has a President imposed on them, we for the most part just yawn, and go on our way. The Iraqis get pissed and fight it out. I'm not saying violence is the answer, but at least they're doing something.

And just how legit is it to have your hand picked government puppets "request" the presence of your military, especially considering our military has already been there for months? C'mon, we came in as an invasion force and we're remaining as a force of occupation. Not a force of security or liberation,a force of occupation.

No, you aren't the only one speaking the truth of the matter. Apparently you're just the only one who is willing to continue to believe the Bush administration rhetoric, and closing yourself off from the truth of what is happening in Iraq and the rest of the world.

And no, your differing opinion doesn't piss me off, it simply saddens me that after all that is happened so many people are still so gullible. I was once again being too optimistic in estimating the intelligence of the American people. Thanks for bringing back to reality in that regard.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

195. That Is Truly Funny.

"Why is there a civil war going on over there? Because much of the population of Iraq considers their government to be illegal and illegit."

Sorry if I find your premise hilarious. If you truly think that reasoning is the cause for the majority of violence there, then, well, I don't know what to tell ya.

And as far as addressing your weak and narrow minded attacks go: No, I'm not falling for any administration rhetoric and it is quite a sign of weakness in debate for you to say so. No, I'm not gullible, as I said I just have a different opinion than you on what the real and untwisted by emotion facts are, and it appears that difference of opinion does in fact bother you or you would discuss this civilly rather than throwing in childish attack.

We obviously disagree on the merits of this debate. So be it. To each their own. :hi:

[Balbus]

19. Yes, but that's not what they're doing.

9 times out of 10, they're targeting and attacking their fellow countrymen. The US's fault, no doubt. But the reality of the situation is that it's a civil war - not a resistance to foreign invaders.

[Jacobin]

22. So, the 3100 American deaths

are collateral damage in the civil war?

:wtf:

[Balbus]

25. Are you denying that it's a civil war in Iraq?

I did say "9 times out of 10." According to the below website, 30,363 Iraqis have been killed by violence brought about by other Iraqis since January of 05. Approximately 10 to 1 - hence the "9 times out of 10."

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

[Jacobin]

29. Why do you ask that question?

9 times out of ten for Iraqi deaths, maybe.

9 times out of ten for American deaths? I think that's silly

[Balbus]

32. Eh, you lost me.

I don't understand what you're saying.

[pampango]

51. The real question is why are Iraqi civilians killed in10 times greater

numbers than American troops? (The figures could be 200 times more comparing 600,000 Iraqi deaths to 3,100 American deaths.)

The "resistance" is certainly responsible for the 3100 dead Americans, but are they responsible for the thousands of civilian killed by suicide bombers, car bombs, and death squads? If they are, then two things: One - they are a pretty despicable group to kill their fellow Iraqi shoppers, students and job seekers in pursuit of their political goals; Two - they are very effective and there would be some hope that this violence would end when we leave.

The other possibility is that the "resistance" is going after the Americans, and the civilians are being slaughtered in a civil war that has little to do with our presence other than that our removal of Saddam and botched occupation created the conditions for the civil war to happen. In this case the slaughter is likely to go on after we leave.

[JackRiddler]

43. I like that one... "collateral damage"

Also, it's not like the US has a dog in the "civil war" fight, is it? It's not like the US is arming or organizing or green-lighting or creating any of the competing factions in the "civil war," is it? No, the US is just a cop on the beat, and the gangs are going at each other because they're animals, and Americans are hit only by stray bullets.

This is the mythology now being propagated... by the Democrats!

[Sterling]

79. Are you trying to say we ARE backing one side?

Which one is it? I can't tell. It seems like they are all attacking us equally, except the kurds, they seem to mind their own business? Maybe we should turn the whole damn place over to the Kurds, they seem to be the only faction not fucking with everybody else.

[JackRiddler]

118. The death squads around the Interior Ministry

were armed by the US. In 2004, there was open talk of a Salvadoran solution an lo and behold, Negroponte (the old Contra hand) was sent to play Plenipotentiary of the Occupation. From there everything got worse.

You're right, the situation is opaque. On what basis do we know who exactly is blowing up what and why? A year ago, every single attack mentioned in the US media was attributed to "Zarqawi." Obviously that was untrue. Why do you believe any attributions now?

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of false-flag attacks. Do you think it's possible that some of these are being committed in Iraq?

[Sterling]

135. Why do you believe any attributions now?

mainly because they are not as absurd as the "Zarqawi did it" meme they were pushing before. Now it seems they are admitting that pretty much every faction is attacking us. That seems to be a realistic portrayal of what is going on in Iraq at this point.

Maybe they wanted a civil war there? Maybe that is the goal of all of these false flag and propaganda operations? I don't know. But the reports that both Sunni and Shia are attacking us and that they are getting help from outside Iraq, makes total sense to me. It's not I trust them, rather I trust my own sense of bullshit and knowledge of history.

[Buzz Clik]

20. If the real question had only one dimension, the answer would be simple.

Do we have some obligation to try to set right the horrible things we set in motion? I'm not talking about Bush here -- yes, he caused the problem -- I'm talking about us Americans. Do we, as a nation, have owe anything to the Iraqis for the mess that our elected official caused?

[JackRiddler]

See post 11 last couple of paragraphs n/t

[Buzz Clik]

53. Nicely stated.

Now, if only our elected representatives would grow some stones and start down that trail themselves.

[JackRiddler]

50. dupe delete nt

[demrabble]

23. Absolutely!

Of course the Iraqi people have a right to resist foreign invaders and occupiers of their country.

The people of Iraq are in the same situation now that the French people were in during the early 1940's -- the country had been invaded and occupied and a puppet regime established.

Like the French, the Iraqis have set up an Underground Resistance to the Occupiers.

[pampango]

38. Two difference. The French resistance did not target French

civilians who are suffering 90% of the casualties from car bombs, suicide bombers, and death squads. What kind of a resistance kills 9 of its own civilians for every occupier they kill. And the civilians are not "collateral damage". They are the targets. The French resistance went after the German occupiers.

While an election held during an occupation is hardly an ideal way to select a government, neither are military coups or hereditary succession which is quite common in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Most Iraqis want us gone. We want us gone. No argument. But please do not glorify the butchers that target shoppers, students, and job seekers intentionally as part of some grand plan.

[Solon]

78. Actually, the French Resistance went after Collaborators with vengence...

They also fought the Vichy Government almost as much as they fought the German Occupiers. So, yes, they DID target civilians in addition to participating in a civil war of sorts.

[Sterling]

83. The level of violence directed toward civilians in Iraq by

Iraqi's is not comparable to what happened in France. What is happening in Iraq is flat out terrorism between ethnic groups and religious groups. I also think it really makes an op look silly to compare the US to the Nazi's in this situation to.

[Solon]

88. Actually, in some ways, the two occupations are comparable...

Fallujah was retribution against a few mercs who were killed, isn't that collective punishment? Similar to what the Nazis did to Oradour-sur-Glane.

We also engaged, or are still engaging, in torture of prisoners, most of which were guilty of no resistance activities.

The current, American backed Iraqi government is guilty of sending out death squads, similar, again, to The Milice, a paramilitary group organized by the Vichy Regime.

The only thing I can think of that we haven't done, as far as I'm aware of, is outright execution of suspected guerrilla fighters. So we are marginally better than the Nazis in this regard.

This isn't to say that ALL Iraqis who engage in resistance activities are taking the "high road", however, it would be foolish to think they are all the same. Just as the French Resistance was composed of dozens of groups, some with conflicting beliefs and actions, so do the Iraqis have the same problem, even more so, considering that Nationalism isn't as strong within Iraq.

This also isn't to say we are 100% comparable to the Nazis, for we haven't sent 10 million people into concentration camps to be killed yet, and, as far as I'm aware of, we aren't using outright slave labor for war production.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. "We aren't using outright slave labor for war production" -- wait awhile

AL Senator Sessions complained in a hearing (as did TX Senator Cornyn):

"despite all the violence, Iraq still has nowhere near the number of people in its jails
than we have in my state. Ther Iraqis need more people in more jails!!!!"

I am not joking.

[pampango]

108. Good point. I thought of that and forgot to include it in my post.

What I would say is that the French resistance did not indiscriminately target civilians by blowing up markets, job seekers and attacking students. They did attack civilians who they thought were collaborators, but it was much more targeted than the attacks on civilians in Iraq.

[JackRiddler]

130. So who exactly is blowing up which market?

And why do you think you know?

[Sterling]

137. I don't think anyone knows that much, not even insurgents

At this point it is clear all factions are engaged in terrorism, except maybe the Kurds. As far as credit for each attack, I think the insurgents try to keep some of that stuff in the dark.

[pampango]

139. I would tell you exactly, but that would give you the impression

that I either work in intelligence or have some. I don't and my wife says I don't have much.

My logic (given the intelligence I have to work with) is that it is either the anti-occupation resistance brutally killing civilians to show the world that bad things happen when Americans invade and occupy a country. If true, it is a fairly effective, if heartless, strategy.

The other possibility is that it is one side in the civil war attacking the other. The Sunni seem to prefer the bomb and the Shia the death squad, but I am sure that neither have exclusive rights to either method. I only say that because the bombs seem to go off in Shiite and mixed neighborhoods, while the morning toll of dead bodies with bullet holes in the head seem to come mostly from Sunni neighborhoods.

(The third possibility is that the boogey man is masterminding this to foster the continuing violence which drives up his poll numbers and helps him win congressional elections. The last thing he would want it is a peaceful and happy Iraq that would prove the wisdom of his invasion.)

How do I think I know? (Gee, I wonder where this could be going.) Like most things I read and listen to people and sources that I trust and then try to figure things out for myself. (In other words, I am brainwashed by the MSM.) I would cite my sources, but I doubt that would convince you of anything.

[JackRiddler]

142. There isn't only one bogeyman

Plus it's not like we don't have confusing factionalism on our own side, it's just that it's better hidden.

Our covert state and the permanent-war bureaucracy have seen many presidents come and go. This one's been one of their most successful operations, but they all go, whereas the Pentagon and the "intelligence community" and their privatized nodes remain. Pumping Bush up may be of low priority (you seem to make that dubious assumption), and the geostrategic considerations being followed in the Middle East (whether rational or not) may in fact favor chaos over order in Iraq. (What do you figure those PNAC boys want to see, by the way? Chaos until Iran is openly involved -- as a nuclear cinder.)

I understand your logic for dividing up the attributions as you do (bombs in Shia markets, bodies in Sunni neighborhoods), but the details and the occasional spectacular exceptions may actually be the more important cases. The case-by-case record is simply opaque.

Who blew up the Grand Mosque?

I don't mean to suggest I know, or even have a hunch I'd be willing to bet. Unlike 9/11, I don't know shit about the details -- and neither does anyone who can't read Arabic, and probably they don't know shit either.

But whoever it was understood that it would set off a whole new shitstorm. Maybe they were just bad-ass Sunni fanatics who wanted it bad. Or maybe they had a particular calculation. I therefore nominate this for likeliest candidate to have been a false-flag attack in Iraq in 2006.

Speaking of demonstrable false-flag activity, see here:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/09/carry-on-killing.html

There's no doubt that sometimes the MSM provides truthful information, or useful snippets. For on-the-ground reporting from Baghdad detailing the various factions (and they are not simply "Shia" and "Sunni") I recommend the articles by Patrick Cockburn running the last few weeks at

http://counterpunch.org

[pampango]

145. Wow, our "covert state and the permanent-war bureaucracy".

You are way past me on the learning curve. Perhaps this evil cabal does prefer chaos in Iraq and nuclear incineration for Iran. Perhaps they are the source of all evil and violence in the Middle East and elsewhere.

I will not catch you on the learning curve. I belong to that small, but irritating, group of Democrats who do not believe that we are the most, if not all of the violence on earth (I know you didn't say that, but it seemed like something you were building up to.) Our government acts selfishly and stupidly too often, and other time just makes mistakes. I suspect most countries are guilty of this, but they are not "our" country and are not as powerful, so we don't worry about the effects as much.

I suspect that you have tons of evidence to prove to me that I am wrong, but mentally I am more suited to keep working to improve a country that I believe is flawed and imperfect than I would be to do the same for a country that would send suicide bombers into Iraqi markets and nuclear bombs into Iran. You may be right. I just hope that you are not.

Vaya con Dios (or whomever you prefer to "vaya" with;)

[JackRiddler]

158. You needn't put it such absolute terms.

"Perhaps this evil cabal does prefer chaos in Iraq and nuclear incineration for Iran." Indeed.

"Perhaps they are the source of all evil and violence in the Middle East and elsewhere." Hardly.

It's "our" own crimes that we actually have a chance of stopping and should therefore focus on.

[maxsolomon]

24. what would the dalai lama say?

i think he'd say that violence & anger only beget violence & anger.

do tibetans have the right to resist china with violence?

[TheBaldyMan]

27. Everybody has that right,

How effective it is depends on the form it takes.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. Absolutely

There is no such thing as a legitimate colonial government.

[cgrindley]

40. Wow... MINUTEMEN rejoice as DU'er concedes moral high ground

Although I know that you're attempting to argue that whether it's the coalition of the willing or dudes from Iran, it should be pretty much the same thing as far as Iraqis are concerned, you've kind of stated a disturbing precedent. Not only does your logic presuppose that Iraq and Iraqis actually "exist"--which I'm not entirely sure that it or they do. Your logic also echoes the Minutemen's logic (or lack thereof).

[Balbus]

45. Interesting take.

The Minutemen would agree with the premise of the OP.

[JackRiddler]

I doubt that

They might agree with the logic, but not in the Iraqi case: or do you have the figures for support for the war among "Minutemen"?

By the way, sorry but your signature line is a hoax quote. No less a source than Camera has a page debunking it (though King said something similar in fewer words that they quote):

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369

[JackRiddler]

48. oops dupe

x

[JackRiddler]

46. I'm sorry - at first I didn't get it.

It took two readings to understand what you meant, because the reasoning escaped me.

But let me get this right: You think that because I'm saying that an occupying army that seized a country from 4,000 miles away is illegitimate, that this somehow justifies the anti-immigrant stance of the Minutemen in Arizona, because they, too, claim to be fighting a foreign invasion?

What exactly are the parallels? Did the Mexican Army bomb the Hoover Dam, seize Arizona and Nevada, hang McCain and place a Green Zone in Phoenix?

Or are you saying that the Anglo-American troops in Iraq are actually immigrants who snuck in on a job search, hoping the Maliki government will issue them amnesty and a Green Card?

Now you're right that on a higher level of reasoning, no country really exists -- which means what in our reality? If you're proposing an end to armies and borders worldwide, I'm with it. Meanwhile...

It's the Arizona Minutemen who are stealing their rationalization, and their name, from the real Minutemen of 1776 -- who did oppose a foreign occupation.

[cgrindley]

59. I'm arguing that

a) the concept of nationhood and borders with regards to Iraq may not be accurate

b) the concept of an Iraqi people may likewise not be accurate

c) that the concept of violently defending borders against transgressors (regardless of their motives) is a slippery slope argument that will eventually lead to the fascist minutemen "defending" America. Borders should either be defended or they shouldn't be. I vote not to defend nor recognize them.

d) violence, even against a violent transgressor is never to be championed.

[JackRiddler]

61. I do not champion violence

And I won't practice it either. But I won't condemn the violence of the invaded against the invaders.

Your other points:

a) This is true of all territorial states. No exceptions. All borders represent the outward reach of an invasion, or a ceasefire line.

b) Likewise an illusion with all peoples. Twenty years ago, Yugoslavians felt Yugoslavian. Was it better when the various ethnonationalists gained ascendancy and every enclave discovered its true identity? The states seceded based on ethnic majority, and each states had regions with different majorities in favor of further secession from the state, and each region had its enclave of a different majority, and soon the next block over wanted to secede from the neighborhood and lifelong neighbors cut each others' throats.

In Iraq, it's also a patchwork. You can never get a peaceful breakup into regions. This is the recipe for perpetual war.

c) Paradoxically enough, I think the first principle on the way to eliminating all borders will be first to recognize and cease having disputes over the current borders. Everyone needs to get over the history that landed them in these patchwork agglomerations (also, recognize the power of variety). Once these are no longer the subject of violent conflict, we will be able to take the next step to demilitarization and, ultimately, a world without borders.

But seriously, what's with the philosophy here? How is this relevant to the war? You making out like the US troops are anarchists sent to spread the ideal of a world without nations? What's your stance on the occupation? Do you support any of the plans or proposals currently in play?

[manic expression]

49. Is there not a difference

between people crossing borders in search of jobs, and a large military which is waging total war upon a populace?

Circumstances must be taken into account. Let the Minutemen say whatever the hell they want to, they're still bigoted fools.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. You're the one who argued all CIA agents should be outed.

[leftchick]

52. Apparently NOT! "Operation Arrowhead Strike Six " (wtf?) in full swing

scaring the crap out of old ladies and children across Baghdad.... :(






An Iraqi holds his mother after she suffered a panic attack following the questioning and near-detainment of her son by US Army soldiers from the 5-20 Infantry Division during the launch of Operation Arrowhead Strike Six in the Shaab neighbourhood of northern Baghdad, 06 February 2007. Democrats are struggling to give voice to a strong condemnation of President George W. Bush's new Iraq strategy and fulfill the expectations of a war-weary public that voted them into power in Congress.(AFP/File/David Furst)

[JackRiddler]

58. What is the surge?

"House-to-house search" to eliminate enemies and "keep" the area (as opposed to them coming back in after "our" departure).

Anyone killed no matter who is a militant, an insurgent, a terrorist. Just like with the Vietnam bodycount strategy.

[Sterling]

84. Wow, if she is so panicky over questioning imagine

how scary those daily suicide bombers must be. At this point I don't see us as evil invaders. In fact we are the only thing standing in the way of genocidal civil war. We are the Iraqi's last hope to not descend into a level of violence that will make what has happened so far insignificant.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. Yeah, what did they ever do without us? n/t

[Sterling]

138. Are you serious?

You think this interrogation was as bad as the kind of police state Saddam was running? Serious?

[Imagevision]

55. Do the Iraqi people have a right to resist foreign invaders? - Yes! they're now called insurgents...

[shance]

60. Of course they do, but they have been genocided and have nothing to defend themselves with.

This Administration bombed an essentially totally defenseless country.

All the fighting you see being created is by the war profiteers themselves.

[JackRiddler]

62. Quite possibly true...

But I don't think things are truly that hopeless. There are genuine insurgents and genuine militias (whatever we may think of the various factions). I mean, they dismissed the previous Iraqi army and those guys went home... where do you think the weapons ended up?

[shance]

72. I would ask you the same. With the US occupation firmly in control, where indeed would they end up?

n/t

[Sterling]

85. "hopeless."

What do you mean? Hope that they can get us out so they can kill each other faster? Hope they can have peace? What are they supposed to be hoping for here. If I was an Iraqi I would have hoped that the elections would have lead to a government that would keep the peace and not enact Islamic law.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. The Iraqi people do. Iraqi people don't.

Force is only legitimate if backed by a democratic mandate. If a sufficiently large proportion of the populace agree to use force to do so then it would be legitimate, but unless you have a large majority backing the use of force in any cause then that minority who do support it do so illegitimately.

At present my impression is that most Iraqi people, including the semi-democratically-elected government, want the Americans gone but don't support the use of violence to achieve it. I'm not confident of that fact, though, and I would put very little faith in polls on the issue either way.

[iverglas]

64. heh - I was just about to say

that the problem is: who/what are/is "the Iraqi people"?

A people has a right to do things that people don't have the right to do.

Except ... a people can only do something if people do it.

When it comes to deciding which people are acting on behalf of a people, standards will vary. Resistance movements seldom have "a democratic mandate", since nothing that fits that bill is possible to achieve. And it's always possible that a minority is really acting in the best interests of the majority, even if the majority doesn't think so or doesn't care.

I might say that the Iraqi people does ... and Iraqi people may have ...

[LynnTheDem]

82. Majority of Iraqis -Shia as well as Sunni- support attacks on US troops.

Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among both Shiites and Sunnis.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003410658

[Donald Ian Rankin]

113. Could you post an excerpt, please?

Your link requires me to subscribe, which I'm reluctant to do.

*If* it's an accurate claim then that would certainly be a mandate, but as I said I'm sceptical about the ability of anyone to accurately or impartially poll in Iraq at present.

[LynnTheDem]

114. I can't c&p from this 'puter, but will msg you after work w the

article, if that's ok w you?

I hate typing out urls, and I always miss a letter and/or number somewhere!

[gravity]

67. It depends

As much as I disagree about the start of the Iraq war, the American invasion isn't the real problem, its the civil war in Iraq. The Iraqis are fighting each other now, and America is part to blame, but playing the blame game is just making the situation worst. The Iraqis aren't completely innocent either though.

The focus of Iraq shouldn't be about who was right, or who deserves what. We should argue about whats the best thing we can do to end the violence and bring peace in the region instead. Stop adding fuel to the fire.

[JackRiddler]

69. please see post 11, thanks n/t

[MiniMe]

68. Yes, but they have to greet them with flowers and chocolates first n/t

[Zhade]

71. Yes, the same as we do were we illegally invaded based on lies about a nonexistent threat.

That's why I would like the soldiers HOME!

[Sterling]

74. Do they have the right to murder each other by the thousands?

Sorry the "insurgents" over there are animals. They are murdering each other at a far greater rate than they are "resisting foreign invaders". What country should they be fighting anyway? Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the US? Every country in the region has some sort interest in what happens there. Many of them have some sort of involvement in the fighting.

Iraq's best chance to have there country back came and went with those elections. Whatever is left of Iraq will in fact be dominated by other powers in the region. Now it seems after we pull out the country will be divided and many people in Iraq will live in a talibanesque society instead of the one they could have enjoyed if the "insurgents" had not destroyed any chance they had at a peaceful Democracy.

I was very against the war ever starting and will never forgive our party for not doing more to stop it. However now that we are there and having seen what the Iraqi's have been doing to each other I am not impressed with their society. I feel like we gave them a chance to have their own country and they decided as a people to reject it and murder each other. If they had united against us and were not just killing our troops so we would leave and they could kill each other , maybe there may be some point to your question. However life, liberty and peace are not something Islamic society seems to be very focused on. The last few years has really made the difference in the values of our societies more stark than ever.

I agree with you most of the time, maybe my opinions have changed over time on this issue. I still respect your point of view. Keep up the good fight friend.

[Solon]

90. You are assuming that all Iraqis over there are the same...

A gross Generalization to say the least. First we have to separate at least two groups, Iraqis resisting foreign occupation, that would be the true insurgents, and then the Iraqis participating in a civil war.

First, it must be clear here, that in both cases, a majority of folk in the country do NOT have to participate in the fighting for it to be effective. In addition to this, there is another consideration, while there will be a lot of overlap between the two basic groups, there are sub-groups and other groups that participate that don't overlap nearly as much.

There is also the muddled issue of foreign fighters within the nation, both organized, unorganized and for-profit groups, from various countries, that participate in all sides of the war. Some are Shi'a militias, others are Sunni, etc.

Iraq has been occupied by foreign powers, or under dictatorships for centuries, and we expect, in a few short years, for their nation to all of the sudden be a democracy? They don't even have the past institutions or history to fall back on to even support such a notion. Democracies, by their very nature, have to come from the people of a nation, not imposed on them by some outside force with a gun pointed at their head.

Hell, Iraq isn't even a NATION, not in a real sense, they are a nation with borders drawn up by a foreign country that had no inkling of what the ethnic or national composition of that new nation would be. The Kurds want Kurdistan back, and 3 nations have always opposed that, the Baathist regime in Iraq, along with Turkey and Iran. In addition, the split among the Iraqis goes even deeper with its religious divisions. In fact, the entire Middle East, at least to me, seems extremely similar to Middle Age Europe, especially during the beginning of the Reformation. The only major difference is that the Muslims in the Middle East have far better weapons and far more money.

This is a big reason why Iraq is the mess it is. We are yet another imperialistic power with no inkling as to how to even BEGIN to institute peace in this nation, and, in fact, have made things far worse because of our presence.

[Karenina]

119. Great post! May I add...

[iverglas]

120. and it's hardly as if Iraq and Iraqis are unique in all this

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/french_resistance.htm

In the immediate aftermath of the June 1940 surrender, France went into a period of shock. The public had been assured that the French army, along with the Maginot Line, was more than strong enough to resist a German attack. The speed and severity of Blitzkrieg had shocked the French people. The non-occupied region of France, known as Vichy France, was set up by the Germans and governed by Marshall Pétain. His reputation was still high and in the early days of Vichy, his leadership gave it some stability and kudos. Also in the days after the British attack on Mers el Kébir, there was a degree of anti-British sentiment in France. Therefore, there was no immediate drive to create a resistance movement en masse in central and southern France.

On June 18th, 1940, Charles de Gaulle addressed the people of France from London. He called on the French people to continue the fight against the Germans. This message hit hard in occupied France but initially it was less well received in Vichy France. Regardless of what many thought of the Vichy government, the area they controlled was run by French people. However, when the Vichy government began to openly collaborate with the Germans, attitudes hardened.

The French Resistance movement is an umbrella term which covered numerous anti-German resistance movements that were based within France. There were resistance movements that took direct orders from the Special Operations Executive, there was the communist resistance, groups loyal to de Gaulle, regional resistance movements that wanted independence etc. In the north, the target was simply the Germans while in the south, the Vichy government was a target as well as the Germans. The first resistance movements were in the north, such as the OCM (Organisation Civile et Militaire) and by the end of 1940, six underground newspapers were being regularly printed in the north. ...

Not an exact parallel by any means, but not without similarities.

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. "Those people are animals, they need to be civilised, our occupation will save them" n/t

[pampango]

109. What's with the quotation marks?

The poster did say that people who explode car bombs targeting shoppers at a marketplace are "animals". You won't get an argument from me on that terminology.

I don't see the other two phrases that you quote anywhere in his post. If you are going for the "zing" effect by paraphrasing what he said, then ditch the quotation marks. We all paraphrase the comments of other posters around here (usually in a way that makes that the other poster seem as unreasonable as possible), but I try to make it clear when I do that that I am stating my understanding of what the other person posted, not directly quoting.

[JackRiddler]

116. I think he's quoting King Leopold of Belgium

Or channeling him. Because that's the attitude when anyone claims it's the US mission to do any good in Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

80. Yes they do, under international law.

[Sterling]

86. Really, IL allows them to suicide bomb each other

As well as attack our troops even though we are there at the request of their gov and trying to keep the peace? We are the only thing holding that heel hole together and keeping it from turning into a far worse human catastrophe than it already is. You can blame us from invading in the first place but the longer this shit goes on, the Iraqi's only have themselves to blame.

Nothing the "insurgents" are doing is protected under IL. You are talking about mostly religious militias murdering far more Iraqi's than the "invaders". The apologists for these terrorist make me sick. Iraqi's had a chance to live and peace and develop a democracy. They had a chance to have a free society. I have a feeling most Iraqis would prefer that to the type of government they will end up with after we leave. Of course they won't be allowed to complain because the Iraqi taliban will kill them. I don't see how anybody that gives a shit about Iraqi's or humans in general can support the insurgents and their tactics.

[LynnTheDem]

87. I actually read the OP's question.

Do the Iraqi people have a right to resist foreign invaders?

And in fact, under international law, the answer is "yes".

Have a nice day! :hi:

[iverglas]

121. maybe this will help

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

What happens next is of course a matter on which there is no universal agreement. ;)

[Sterling]

160. I don't think that most of the stuff going on in Iraq

is sanctioned under IL. Much of what we have done I feel has crossed/ignored that line. Certainly what the insurgents are doing is not sanctioned under international law. Why do I get the sense some of the people on this thread like/support the insurgents in Iraq? To feel that way you really have to get passed an enormous amount of heinous atrocities and flat out twisted/dangerous ideology and religious fundamentalism.

I have a very hard time looking at what these people are doing and believing they are honorable or fighting for a just cause.

[Sterling]

159. Oh I thought we were talking about reality, sorry.

You want to talk about hypothetical situations. The reality is what is going on is less an effort to rid Iraq of the evil Americans and more of an effort to carve out a piece of the region for various religious and ethnic interests.

The ops question is not really relevant to what is actually happening in Iraq. That was the point of my post but somehow I bet you knew that but prefer to pretend the noble rebels of Iraq are fighting a just struggle to rid their motherland of the tyranny we have forced upon them.

[JackRiddler]

166. May well be true but does the US presence help or exacerbate?

You say:

"The reality is what is going on is less an effort to rid Iraq of the evil Americans and more of an effort to carve out a piece of the region for various religious and ethnic interests."

Even if this is the case: what's the American role in the struggle? Clearly, the US started it, armed certain factions, and stokes it by taking sides. There may also be an element of planned chaos using false-flag attacks and other provocations to keep the Iraqis killing each other. How does a US presence help the situation in Iraq? It merely guarantees that the war will go on and be far bloodier. And why does the US, as the destroyer of Iraq, get to pick who wins the civil war?

[Sterling]

199. I think it probably does both.

It depends on who you are in Iraq I guess. If you are a moderate Muslim that hopes to live in a mostly secular society the USA may well be there best hope. The problem is that many of these people have fled the country and others have been radicalized by the sect on sect violence of the last few years.

If you are a hard core Sunni or Shia our presence is an obstacle your ultimate goal of creating a society dominated by your sect.

"There may also be an element of planned chaos using false-flag attacks and other provocations to keep the Iraqis killing each other." I do wonder how much of this is something our "think tankers" wanted. If we did not give a rats ass about the well being of Iraqi people we may well be in th process of setting Iraq up as the battleground for a giant war between rival Islamic factions/nations. Maybe the plan has always been to start the fire and get out of the way while the Sunni's and Shia destroy each other leaving us to pick up the pieces? Yes it's a pretty grand CP but trying to make sense of events over there is a challenge.

Do you think we are pulling for one faction over another? If so who do we want to succeed?

Thx for the discussion btw. I always find your opinions interesting.

[JackRiddler]

204. Google "A Clean Break"

Subtitled something like "Securing the Realm," from 1996 or so, commissioned by right-wing Israelis, including I think Netanyahu... a plan drawn up by certain familiar names (Perle among others) who inhabit AEI, PNAC, and the Pentagon's policy board under Rumsfeld. Talks about a new Middle Eastern order in which the familiar states are broken up along ethnic lines and no one's a threat to Israel.

Without overemphasizing the Israeli angle: see, the idea is out there of how convenient a (further) balkanized ME is for strategic purposes. Idea is to checkerboard it into friendly, oil-rich squares vs. impoverished patches. Something like this was implemented in Yugoslavia (where the crisis began with the debt readjustment plan of 1990, which forced the federal government there to devolve almost all funding to the states).

Capital likes small helpless countries on the periphery, competing for its favors, long as there are a few big brutish ones in the West to enforce.

I don't think this system is going to work forever, by the way, and clearly we are seeing a moment of great crisis.

PS - Thanks and ditto!

[Leopolds Ghost]

104. You are talking about religious militias armed and supervised by the US, killing Sunnis

Bush met the leader of the death squads in the White House for coffee recently. Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, an Iranian-funded warlord and president of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. They are our number one ally. They also lead the death squads. You were saying?

[malaise]

94. Yes n/t

[VenusRising]

112. Not only Iraq

but every nation on the globe has a right to resist foreign invaders. But especially in cases like Iraq where the invasion is predicated on many many lies.

[sweetheart]

122. do we?

invaded by advertizements, strip malled and housing estated,
hearded like cattle in pens long awaited,
pens like the enterprise,
shooting down on the lesser races,
from above.

[onenote]

127. did the German people have the right to resist foreign invaders?

Trying to put this in some historical perspective. If "insurgent" militias had arisen in Germany to attack the French, British, Soviet and US troops occupying various parts of the country after the end of WWII, would that have been within their "rights"? What about after the creation of the West and East German states in 1949 -- at what point did the governments established by the occupying nations become independent enough to negate the argument that they were "puppets" of the occupying troops? Did the East German government ever achieve that goal? What about the West German government.

[JackRiddler]

128. Thank you for finding a loophole in my question.

A thought-provoking example.

No the Germans didn't have that right, or wouldn't have been right to resist, for the simple reason that they were the foreign invaders who first attacked every country on your list (including a declaration of war on the United States on Dec. 8 or 11 or so, 1941). These countries in defending themselves fought all the way back to Berlin, ending the threat and the war it had launched on them.

In no way is this comparable to Iraq, which threatened no one, attacked no one, and was bombed and invaded by an empire centered 4,000 miles away.

Your second question: As the main ideological battlefield of the Cold War, the Germans were offered a true chance for peace and prosperity on both sides of the line (relative to the rest of the world, certainly), so they actually had a choice and an opportunity to rebuild. The US offers no choice to Iraq, but rather continues the destruction and actively pursues the breakup of Iraq into helpless mini-states, only pretending to build the nation in the same way that it pretended to feel threatened by Iraqi WMDs.

The East German one-party state never stopped being dependent on the coherence of the Soviet system as a whole, which is why it tumbled soon as the cracks in the latter became visible.

West Germany is a more complex case because the government there was a (relatively) genuine democracy with opposition to US interests represented in the parliament from the 1950s forward. These were never dominant but the Allies tread carefully after 1949 out of a fear of provoking neutralism. Prosperity and the Cold War assured the Germans found the deal good but they were able to pursue an independent foreign policy by the 1970s -- when Brandt's Ostpolitik began the detente process by which the Soviet empire was ultimately undermined (contrary to the US propaganda about Ronald Reagan). In 1983, the country went for the Euromissiles, but clearly this could have gone the other way (NATO would have broken up) and the US wouldn't have been able to force Germany.

Formally, full sovereignty arrived with the 2+4 treaty of 1990.

[onenote]

131. intresting distinction

And I think it makes some sense. However, it still can be somewhat dicey. For example, while the United States declared war on Germany in 1917, the Germans never declared war on the US. Does that mean that any US participation in occupation of any part of post-war Germany would've been a "foreign invasion"? I can think of reasons why not, but the point I think is that these situations are not black and white -- there are nuances that create distinctions. I personally think our invasion of Iraq was an enormous mistake, whether or not one concludes it was illegal as a matter of international law. I think our continued presence there also is an enormous mistake. As for whether Iraqis have the "right" to attack our soldiers? I don't really care. I don't want our soldiers dying there so the issue of whether Iraqis have the right to attack them or not is irrelevant to me.

[JackRiddler]

164. Sure

I'm not happy when US soldiers get attacked (though this is how freepers might read it). They should come home. I am contesting the rhetoric of terrorists, haters, blah blah -- they live there and wouldn't be shooting at Americans if Americans hadn't flattened their world.

Perhaps the right question for this thread would have been:

Does the US occupation have the right to determine anything in Iraq?

The answer clearly is no. Even if it's a "civil war" (I dispute that because it denies US culpability), the US has no right or standing to pick the winner. Even if a very bad faction is going to win in Iraq and commit horrible acts, they will not catch up with what US policy and the invasion and the continuing occupation have done to the people there.

Note also that for any one group in the hostilities, you can only blame them for the things they do, not all of them collectively for everything all of them do.

[Justpat]

129. Yes.

But in Bush's demented world view, no one has any rights unless he
gives them those rights. He believes that no one has the right to
resist his force fed democracy, which is really a cover for his
world wide oil grab.

[JackRiddler]

132. Evidence of false-flag terror conducted by coalition forces in Iraq

QUOTE:

We have long had reason to suspect imperial instigation to Iraq's sectarian violence, but here, as clearly as we've ever seen it, is the provocateur state revealed: two British "undercover soldiers" in Arab dress, caught firing upon police from a car laden with explosives. And the British government all but admitting its culpability by breaking them out of prison.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/09/carry-on-killing.html

How can I persuade ALL of you to follow the above link? Please.

And these are among the people some of you trust to decide who should come out on top in the Iraqi "civil war" that they knowingly initiated.

[mikelewis]

141. They have not only the right but the obligation to resist foreign invaders... however,

...the manner in which they conduct that resistance is subject to debate. Murdering their own countrymen, sniping at U.S. troops, undermining any sort of aid to their country is not only unseemly, it's self-defeating. The longer the Iraqi's choose to fight with guns and bombs, the longer they're going to have to deal with people like Bush. If they really wanted to rid Iraq of U.S. troops, they'd fight fire with water and not more fire. I wholeheartedly disagree with their right to kill but I support their right to resist occupation.

[theboss]

149. Yes...though I don't think that's the issue in Iraq

From what I can tell, most of the people being killed are Iraqis...by fellow Iraqis and outsiders.

Those who are couching this in terms of "Iraqis resisting Crusaders" are missing the larger point here. The Bush war is probably illegal because we invaded a sovereign nation. But that's, frankly, a triviality at this point. We invade sovereign nations all the time. I'm not going to lose sleep over that.

The problem with the Iraq War is not the fact that we invaded a nation and its citizens are resisting. The problem is we invaded a nation and unleased 50 years worth of pent-up anger and sectarian hatred AND added to the mix the opportunity for outsiders with money, guns, and explosives to cause further chaos.

I think about this all the time. I was not against the war because war is bad; I'm not sure I always believe that. Sometimes, war is necessary.

I was not against the war because I supported Saddam Hussein. In a vaccuum, a world without Saddam Hussein is better than a world with Saddam Hussein.

And I was not agains the war, because of anything the UN did. I could give a shit about the UN.

I was against the war because we were playing with forces we could not control. We took a country with three very different ethnic groups, a very strong tribal country, a lot of guns and loose money, with large undefensible borders to countries with a vested interest in its disintegration and intentionally through it into chaos. And now we have the nerve to be shocked.

[JackRiddler]

156. My problem is with the word "unleashed"

As in unleashed the civil war.

The outlines of the history say something else to me. Confronted with an insurgency, the occupying authority took the "Salvadoran option" and began to arm death squads.

[theboss]

165. I don't disagree with that; I don't necessarily agree with that

There are so many actors in place in Iraq right now, that is probably going to require the long lens of history to sort out who is backing whom, whom is killing whom, and what all the motivations are.

I agree with you (I think) in that it is pretty naive to call all the killing in Iraq as part of the "resistance." Whatever "resistance" there may have once been in Iraq has been absorbed by the larger Sunni/Shia battle or the upstart Al Qaeda movement (which has a role in the Sunni/Shia battle) or the Iranian influence (which has a role in the Sunni/Shia battle).

I don't get the impression that the Shia want us out right now. At the moment, we are the best thing that ever happened to the Shia. We gave them the legitimacy of power and the space to slaughter the Sunni. I don't think we necessarily intended this to happen, but it was reasonably predictable. It's a tragedy that no one in the Bush Administration seemed to realize that this would be the end game.

There are elements of the Shia that do target Americans. But I don't view it as a resistance so much as a "message." Sadr occasionally sends his militia after Americans or American agents simply to say "Don't forget who is in charge here."

The Sunni probably do want us out. And they are probably targeting the US to a certain degree. But I think they only want to hurt us because they see us as the illegitimate backers of the Shia majority.

Al Qaeda elements are certainly targeting Ameriacns, because that is what they do. They are probably also targeting Shia. And probably don't care if they kill Sunni.

Iran, I think, is taking the the long view. I think they see this a proxy fight, much like we viewed Afghanistan. I have no doubt that a lot of the weapons being used have Iranian fingerprints. And I think they would be happy to keep us bogged down in Iraq for three or four more years, sapping our strength and treasure, finally to leave, and give them a proxy-state.

The Kurds want us there forever probably.

The whole thing is exhausting.

[donco6]

154. Only if resistance = waving candy and flowers. n/t

[StrictlyRockers]

161. Yes! And we have a right to get our troops out of where they don't belong.

[pinniped]

162. As much as the Wolverines resisted the foreign contingent of invaders in Red Dawn.

Red Dawn is a favorite among gun-nut repukes and they still scratch their cro magnon heads wondering why the US is being attacked in Iraq.

[theboss]

168. Except Patrick Swayze never blew up a a marketplace

I have a hard time calling what is going on in Iraq "resistance," when 95 percent of the killing is Iraqi on Iraqi.

[JackRiddler]

170. It was a movie...

You'll have a hard time finding a resistance that's so noble in real life.

But doesn't the principle apply?

Leviathan invades small country.

People in small country resist.

Leviathan arms death squads, stirs up ancient rivalries among those people, and then call it a civil war, which is supposed to be the moral basis for Leviathan continuing its occupation.

[Canuckistanian]

169. It's a natural right

Just like the Irish, the Vietnamese, the Palestinians, the East Timorese, the Kuwaitis....

Now, the Iraqis.

Each was invaded and each fought back.I can't blame any of them. Especially the Iraqis who never did ANYTHING to threaten the US, it's allies or even Iraq's own neighbors.

Sure, they've gotten rid of Saddam. But they've lost their security, their natural resources, their infrastructure and the little matter of 650,000 of their citizens.

If I were Iraqi, I'd sure as hell fight, too.

[theboss]

172. Who would you fight though?

I think the main problem foreign policy for the Left (and I consider myself part of this issue too) is that we naturally support the underdog. Whatever group is being oppressed, we are inclined to support/cheer for/what have you.

Unfortunately, in the real world, the noble underdog would often be the oppressor if given the chance.

I can already see a sort of sentiment building for the Sunni (who are probably the closest thing to a Resistance) in Iraq. Even though the Sunni were the oppressors there for 50 years.

[manic expression]

175. Rights don't exist

however, their fight is not without justification.

[theboss]

177. Rights don't exist?

Do I even want to go down this path with you? I'm going to end up in alley without my wallet, aren't I?

[manic expression]

182. No

They only exist within the definition of society. Society makes "rights", they are not rights unless people say they are. Therefore, rights are based in absolutely nothing.

Let me ask you a question: what is the foundation for "rights"? What are they based in? Are they natural? How so? Those are questions that need to be answered.

By the way, roughly the same argument goes to the money in your wallet (capital is a contstruct of society, or more specifically the bourgeoisie).

[pampango]

184. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Rights exist even if a society does not recognize them. My rights may be violated, but they do not disappear.

[manic expression]

185. That's not a foundation

That's an agreement that some people say they follow. I'm looking for a real basis, something that is independent of the UN, the US or ANY authority. Rights, if they are to be seen as more than something we create, must exist on their own.

So before there was a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were there any rights? What if everyone agrees to make a new Declaration, does that mean that your rights have now changed?

[pampango]

186. Please delete- duplicate

[manic expression]

188. That is a document, not a basis

The Declaration was, again, a document that men wrote. It is far from evidence of anything natural, it is only evidence of what a group of people wrote down. Those rights (DoI, UDHR, etc...) do not exist in any real sense; they were invented, not codified. Again, there is nothing concrete to what a bunch of people agreed to.

Let me repeat my questions: What are rights based in other than society's definition? What real foundation do they have (foundations which are apart from society)? No one has answered that question, and it is a very simple one.

Please answer my questions, they are quite straightforward.

[pampango]

189. Hey, you are way too philosophical for me.

I cannot answer your question, so you do not need to ask me again. I suppose it is like trying to prove the existence of God. You either believe or you don't. I don't, but I can't prove that He/She does not exist. I just believe it. There may be a philosophical method by which one can prove or disprove the existence of innate human rights, but I do not know how.

I am a simple believer and pretty happy that way. I am sure you are happy with your beliefs as well.

[manic expression]

190. It's different

yes, that is true, but we should think about what we believe and what our society is like before supporting them. When we analyze rights, we see that they are a development of society's definition, not nature.

I think it is good for you to be happy about what you believe in, but I think the points I presented should be strongly considered. If you ask me, we should not believe in something without having a basis for it.

[pampango]

187. If you want to believe that people are not born with rights,

I cannot convince you otherwise.

There certainly were rights before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are, as the Declaration of Independence states "inalienable". The purpose of the UDHR was to try to codify those rights, as other documents have done before and others will undoubtedly do in the future. Rights do change, evolve, hopefully for the better not for the worse.

[JackRiddler]

197. Hence the resort to the Creator

By people who may not have even believed in one, like Thomas Jefferson.

You know, by this argument, civilization doesn't exist either. The logic of the situation is such that "some people" are actually compelled to acknowledge the existence of rights or else live under cannibalism.

[manic expression]

198. That is the usual grasp

Locke based practically everything on the Bible.

Society defines civilization as well. What is "civilized"? We can give a reasonable and valid definition, however, and this idea is something that is applied TO something. "Rights", on the other hand, must exist on their own to really be "rights"; they don't.

I think there's a difference between civilization and rights, but this may be something to explore.

[JackRiddler]

202. Excuse my sloppy categories

You're right, I mean not civilization the knowledge base and infrastructure but civilization the rules thereof (be they more or less genuinely followed).

Locke and Hobbes before him are in the process of replacing god with the simple fear of men, that compels them to find a way, a social contract under which they can live at peace and, well, pursue happiness. In other words, deriving rights (and norms) ultimately from enlightened mutual self-interest, and then turning around and declaring this natural or divine so that there's some underpinning to convince all those who want to break the rules anyway. That we are endowed by a creator is the basis of modern republicanism (definitely small-r). Does it have to be "true"? Can't we convince ourselves that it's superior to cannibalism?

Anyway, I'm not sure whether this plane of philosophy really serves the discussion at hand. What would you do about the occupation?

[laylah]

176. Absolutely! n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

178. When are they going to put that asshole Tom DeLay in jail?

That crooked fucking scumbag should spend the rest of his life tossing salads in sing sing for what he's done to this country.

[Warren DeMontague]

205. Tom DeLay? Did somebody say... Tom DeLay?

[JackRiddler]

Cadshack...

Funny poster.

[JackRiddler]

206. Cadshack...

Funny poster.