[dev_null]

Anyone still believe these scum are fighting the "US invasion," as opposed to attempting to destabilize the democratic process? This isn't about repelling the Coalition, it's about fighting for Wahabbist, extremist, lawless, bigoted, and violent Islam and against Moderate, democratic Islam. They want another Beirut, not another Egypt.



CNN:
Iraqi Interior Minister Baqir Jabbur said "terrorists" had killed 8,175 people (Iraqi civilians, police and troops) and wounded another 12,000 since January 2005.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there have been 307 U.S. fatalities in combat during the same period.


AP:
The vast majority of homicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners — mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs — and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

[BostonGeorge]

I'm sure you'd be the first one to throw down your arms if a foreign offensive showed up in your neighborhood.

Not that I disagree with you, but I can see why somebody who's lived in tyranny his entire life would distrust the forces that have destroyed much of his homeland.

[MrTuffPaws]

^^^^^

+1

[bountyhunter]

Anyone still believe these scum are fighting the "US invasion," as opposed to attempting to destabilize the democratic process? The "scum" are not monolithic, they don't all fight for the same reason.... as evidenced by the fact they sometimes fight each other.

The main core of the insurgency are the Sunnis who were formerly in power under Hussein. They fight to retain a share of power, land and wealth.... and to avoid being forced into a country wher their minority status will be reflected in being crushed by the new regime. They have good reason to fear this: the sheeites have about 30 years worth of revenge the want to lay onto the Sunnis, and it will start as soon as we leave. They believe they are fighting for their lives and have climbed into bed with Al qaeda (their former enemies) to try to stay alive.

A minority of fighters are foreign Islamofascists and some are Al Qaeda. I think AQ controls the command structure of the insurgency. I also think the wahabbi sect in saudi Arabia is providing the funding for the insurgency. Their objective is very different: they want to destroy the new regime and install an Islamic government.


attempting to destabilize the democratic process? There is no hope a democracy is growing in Iraq. Their own people voted for Islamic candidates in the election. The sauds would never allow an actual democracy to grow that close to them because the threat would be too much to their monarchy.

[The Grand Inquisitor]

You may round up the number of dead from the insurgency to close to 10,000.

You can round up the number of dead from the invasion anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000.

The invasion of Iraq has done nothing but create more pain and misery for Iraqi's and has created another "Palestine" martyr ideology construct for Jihadists and nationalists.

The united states invaded a soverign nation with fabricated justification and the people who are fighting against that invasion force are doing no more than most of the people on this board either look fondly on in history or look fondly upon for the future.

[Henry Bowman]

Would a mod please lock this thread? Thus far it appears to be nothing but a big pile of bait waiting to become a flame fest.

[dev_null]

Point being, they're not going after "the forces that have destroyed much of [their] homeland," they're going after the civilian governmental infrastructure. If these were "freedom fighters" struggling to throw off the chains of American oppression, as some love to paint them, they'd be predominantly local, and going after GIs, not civilian cops, shoppers, and civilians attending mosques.

BH: good points, thanks.

[Cosmoline]

Yeah, it's safe to say that if the chicoms take over Alaska, I won't be strapping C4 to my backside and trying to kill as many fellow Alaskans as possible. The tactics these creatures use just proves the theory that they're not fully human.

[MrTuffPaws]

Yeah, it's safe to say that if the chicoms take over Alaska, I won't be strapping C4 to my backside and trying to kill as many fellow Alaskans as possible. The tactics these creatures use just proves the theory that they're not fully human.

But what if your fellow Alaskans are working for or support the invaders?

[bountyhunter]

One of the more interesting points made by an anlyst recently is another parallel to Viet nam: in that war, the "enemy" was also made up of two different main groups: the Viet Cong and the NVA (North Vietnamese regular army).

They also had slightly different agends, and did not agree on everything.

A point not noticed was that it was primarily the VC who were responsible for the TET offensive (and took major losses when we hammered them), but it was the NVA who carried on the war pretty efficiently after Tet.

Iraq has a similar flavor: the "rebels" (analagous to VC) are the Sunni remnants from saddam's regime. The hard core "regulars" we face are Al Qaeda soldiers who are fewer in number (hopefully) but battle hardened and willing to fight for a long term objective: destroying all secular regimes in the Middle East. They also "appear" to be in charge (for the moment) as far as command and control of combat operations.

It makes the war more complicated.








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War



Combatants in the war
In major combat there were, depending upon one's point of view, two to four major combatant organizations; the four being the United States armed forces and allied forces; the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN—the South Vietnamese Army, pronounced Arvin, leading to the pejorative Marvin The Arvin); the NLF (better known as the Viet Cong,) a group of South Vietnamese guerrilla fighters supported and later directed by the PAVN; and the People's Army of Viet Nam (PAVN—the North Vietnamese Army, pronounced Pahvin). The PAVN received military aid from the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China (though aid from the latter waned following the Sino-Soviet split.)

Arguments over which of these four were the actual combatants was a major political focus of the war. The U.S. sought to depict the war as one between ARVN defenders with U.S. help against PAVN forces, thus depicting the NLF a puppet or shadow army and the war as a South Vietnamese defense against North Vietnamese aggression.

The North Vietnamese portrayed the conflict as one between the indigenous South Vietnamese NLF and the United States, with the noncombat support of North Vietnam and its allies. This view held ARVN to be a puppet of the U.S.

These conflicting propaganda stances were later played out in early peace talks in which arguments were made over "the shape of the [negotiating] table" in which each side sought to depict itself as two distinct entities opposing a single entity, ignoring its "puppet".




The Tet Offensive
Continued escalation of American military involvement came as the Johnson administration and Westmoreland repeatedly assured the American public that the next round of troop increases would bring victory. The American public's faith in the "light at the end of the tunnel" was shattered, however, on January 30, 1968, when the enemy, supposedly on the verge of collapse, mounted the Tet Offensive (named after Tet Nguyen Dan, the lunar new year festival which is the most important Vietnamese holiday) in South Vietnam, in which nearly every major city in South Vietnam was attacked. During the temporary Communist occupation of Hue, 3,000 civilians were killed and buried in a mass grave, all of them executed by the Communists, and many were apparently beaten with shovels. This was the worst single massacre against civilians in the war. Although neither of these offensives accomplished any military objectives, the surprising capacity of an enemy that was supposedly on the verge of collapse to even launch such an offensive convinced many Americans that victory was impossible. There was an increasing sense among many people that the government was misleading the American people about a war without a clear beginning or end. When General Westmoreland called for still more troops to be sent to Vietnam, Clark Clifford, a member of Johnson's own cabinet, came out against the war.

[edit]
Tet Aftermath
Soon after Tet, Westmoreland was replaced by his deputy, General Creighton W. Abrams. Abrams pursued a very different approach to Westmoreland, favoring more openness with the media, less indiscriminate use of airstrikes and heavy artillery, elimination of bodycount as the key indicator of battlefield success, and more meaningful co-operation with ARVN forces. His strategy, although yielding positive results, came too late to sway a domestic US public opinion that was already solidifying against the war.

Facing a troop shortage, on October 14, 1968 the United States Department of Defense announced that the United States Army and Marines would be sending about 24,000 troops back to Vietnam for involuntary second tours. Two weeks later on October 31, citing progress with the Paris peace talks, US President Lyndon B. Johnson announced what became known as the October surprise when he ordered a complete cessation of "all air, naval, and artillery bombardment of North Vietnam" effective November 1. Peace talks eventually broke down, however, and one year later, on November 3, 1969, then President Richard M. Nixon addressed the nation on television and radio asking the "silent majority" to join him in solidarity on the Vietnam War effort and to support his policies.

The credibility of the government suffered when the New York Times, and later the Washington Post and other newspapers, published the Pentagon Papers. It was a top-secret historical study, contracted by the Pentagon, about the war, that showed how the government was misleading the US public, in all stages of the war, including the secret support of the French in the first Vietnam War.

[bountyhunter]

But what if your fellow Alaskans are working for or support the invaders? Good point, the suicide bombers have (until recently) targeted collaborational elements almost exclusively.... police units working for the US, members of the new regime, etc. Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia made a similar bargain a decade ago: in return for the Sauds allowing the wahabbis to fund Al Qaeda unrestricted, AQ would target only foreign targets within the kingdom (or sauds who collaborated with foreigners). The sauds returned the favor by blocking US investigations into AQ bombings and telling their own people on the internal media that the bombings were the work of Israeli Zionists.

It is not clear that retaliation against collaborating civilians makes the insurgency less viable. The VC killed Viets who collaborated with US forces. Bottom line, it is sometimes true: "I don't care if they love me as long as they fear me."

If they aren't dropping a dime, it means they fear them enough and the insurgency is in control.

[Cosmoline]

the suicide bombers have (until recently) targeted collaborational elements almost exclusively

I haven't noticed anything of the kind. They have blown up people waiting in line to help the new Iraqi government, and they've blown up a lot of people who just happen to be walking near a US convoy. At any rate, assuming there were Alaskans cooperating with a chicom invasion force, I would not want to bomb them. I'd cut the soles of their feet off and make them dance a jig on the raw bones. But of course all invasion forces are not equal. The chicoms would be imposing tyranny, whereas we just destroyed one in Iraq. The folks who are attacking us don't give a wetslap about the sanctity of Saddam's government. They want a holy war, and they are willing to kill innocents on the assumption that they'll just go to paradise. They're not sane.

[bountyhunter]

I haven't noticed anything of the kind. They have blown up people waiting in line to help the new Iraqi government, and they've blown up a lot of people who just happen to be walking near a US convoy. I never said there was no collateral damage, what I said was that they PRIMARILY TARGETED collaborationist targets.

They're not sane. That erroneous belief more than any single other could cause our defeat. Do not assume they are insane just because they hate us enough to die trying to kill us. Their "religion" commands that they die to kill us and they follow that religion. That is not insanity, their actions are well planned and completely rational from within their belief system.

Their was a group of pilots called Kamakaze who were also quite willing to die to exact a toll on our forces. They were not insane either, and they did a massive amount of damage.

Suicide bombers are just Kamakazes minus the airplane.

[Cosmoline]

My point is that these people aren't even making a claim that the Iraqi government is the problem. They simply want to start a holy war. Unlike the VC, who had a series of political goals, the "insurgents" in Iraq want to kill in order to prevent peace while the infidel is on their soil. They don't care about whether the Iraqi government is a republic or a tyranny. They merely want to slaughter as many people as possible. They're complete animals.

[bountyhunter]

My point is that these people aren't even making a claim that the Iraqi government is the problem. . Which people? The sunni insurgents CERTAINLY have made the claim the new government is "THE PROBLEM" and refused to participate in the election of it. They claim it is a puppet government. The Al Qaeda forces have also gone on record as saying ANY government which is not strictly Islamic is "THE PROBLEM" and thy have stated openly they will destroy them all.


They simply want to start a holy war. True of Al Qaeda, th sunnis just want to run Iraq again and step on the throats of the Sheeites (or murder them all). They are not religous and don't give a crap about Islam.


Unlike the VC, who had a series of political goals, the "insurgents" in Iraq want to kill in order to prevent peace while the infidel is on their soil. The sunnis goal is to get back into power. Or, failing that, force a portion of Iraq to be given to them for their country. Their worst nightmare is to be the minority population under a sheeite dominant regime because the sunnis will be slaughtered and the regime will smile.


They don't care about whether the Iraqi government is a republic or a tyranny. They just want to be in charge again and control the wealth of Iraq like they did under Hussein.

M They merely want to slaughter as many people as possible. They're complete animals. They want to slaughter all the sheeites, and the sheeites want to slaughter the sunnis..... and both of those groups would love to slaughter the Kurds.

So, what?

If that make them animals, the whole Middle east is a barnyard.

[Cosmoline]

The so-called "insurgents" are religious madmen. They have no real political platform and have no coherent objection to the current government other than the fact that it's supported by "infidels." Killing everyone who isn't Muslim is not a legitimate or even coherent political agenda. It's simply insanity, like the Khmer Rouge plan to return to the "year zero." They aren't mad because we ousted their leaders. They're mad because we belong to the wrong faith. Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives. But there is a cadre of animals who want only more and more blood. These people cannot be reasoned with or talked down. They must simply be slaughtered like pigs.

[RevDisk]

To make things more interesting, the Kurds are laying low at the moment. Don't hear too much in the news about them, do ya? They're rather intelligent folks, and decent fighters. They're just binding their time building up their forces. If the Sunnis or Shiites hash out their differences (ha!), they'll have a nasty surprise waiting for them when they step in Kurdish territory.

Kurdistan will eventually be formed.

[Standing Wolf]

I wonder how many so-called "insurgents" the Japanese fielded after the first week of August, 1945.

[Warbow]

I wonder how many so-called "insurgents" the Japanese fielded after the first week of August, 1945.

Apples and oranges.

[javafiend]

If these were "freedom fighters" struggling to throw off the chains of American oppression,

Oh really? Who exactly refers to the Iraqi insurgents as "freedom fighters"? Names, please.

[MechAg94]

Wasn't the last big Muslim conqueror a Kurd? Seems like I heard that somewhere. Samarkand or some such name.

[Cosmoline]

Northern Iraq is becoming a de facto Kurdish homeland. It's doing very well and apart from a few bombings and ethnic clashes in some of the major cities the violence hasn't been as bad there. The big issue there is Turkey, and how it will react if Iraq breaks apart and there's a new Kurdish nation on its border. The Turks really shot themselves in the foot when they refused to allow movement of US troops across their turf. We were able to do just fine sending in the 101st, but they lost all their leverage with the Bush administration.

[Art Eatman]

An interesting article about the situation in Iraq is from Hackworth's website. Soldiers for the Truth is still up and running, and still citing commentary from the guys who are there in Iraq.

The hostiles/terrorists/insurgents seem to be behaving as though they're not actually Iraqis. That is, "to whom it may concern" seems to be the order of the day, with relatively few actual attacks on US troops as compared to attacks on Iraqis. That tells me that destabilization and hatred of order is the criterion.

Further, this is an obvious violation of Sun Tzu's comments about guerilla behavior. Iraqis now are not schools of fish in an ocean, providing anonymity for clandestine hostiles. Iraqis now are providing information to US and Iraqi forces as to who and where the Bad Guys are.

I note the occasional news squib that the Shiites' and Sunnis' leadership people are now in-and-out of discussions about ending the shooting and the Shiites are working to reassure the Sunnis that revenge is not part of the deal. IOW, again it would seem that non-Iraqis are the major part of the shooting problem at the present time...

Art

[dev_null]

> Wasn't the last big Muslim conqueror a Kurd? Seems like I heard that somewhere. Samarkand or some such name.

Are you talking about Saladin, Richard the Lionheart's opponent?

[dev_null]

bh, you're making way too much sense. We're gonna have to put you on a Watch List or something. :D Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful posts.

[RevDisk]

Wasn't the last big Muslim conqueror a Kurd? Seems like I heard that somewhere. Samarkand or some such name.

Salah ad-Din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub. aka, Saladin, The Righteousness of the Faith. He was a Kurd born in Tikrit, Iraq. He routinely kicked the heck out of the Crusaders whenever they provoked him. Raynald of Chatillon was the main aggitator, a plunderer and a pirate. Saladin cut off his head after the Conquest of Jerusalem. (In my opinion, he more than deserved it for murdering civilian caravans on Hajj.)

Generally, Saladin was a very merciful fellow. He usually allowed Christian soldiers and citizens to leave peacefully after he defeated them. Saladin and King Richard got along very well, considering they were enemies. Saladin sent his personal physician when Richard was wounded.

It's kinda amusing that the greatest Muslim warrior was a Kurd. Few if any Muslim sects like the Kurds, and harass them whenever possible.

[RevDisk]

I was doing some meditations, pondering some stuff. Ironically enough, sitting on a very large and ornate silk rug given to me by some Kurds. Photo (http://www.revdisk.net/photos/rugs/Rug5-1.jpg), as I'm rather proud of that rug.

The US has treated the Kurds not very well until recently. Except for shortly after the first Iraqi War, we never really lied to them. Just led them along, and then never delivered on our promises/suggestions. Regardless, as the lack of news on Kurdish territory in Iraq speaks volumes. There is a lot of disagreement between different groups of Kurds, which is why they haven't carved out an actual Kurdistan. It's possible another Saladin will pop up to unite the tribes. It would behoove us to be on good terms with such a person if he pops up.

Again, from conversations with some Kurdish militants, they indeed want to keep a low profile and build up their strength. They know it's pointless to fight the Americans at this point, as the US Army is not currently at war with them. "Why cause a war if you don't need one" is pretty much the Kurdish thinking. As long as we don't do something really stupid, the Kurds will leave us alone.

Sayyid al-Sadr is another 'interesting' character in Iraq. He's sort of a Shiite cleric. The US and the UK wanted al-Khoei (since murdered) to be the prominent leader in the Shi'a community. The two didn't get along. al Sadr's main argument against al Khoei is over a Ba'athist in charge of Imam Ali Mosque, which is considered a very sacred Shi'a site. There is some dispute over who murdered al Khoei, CPA says al Sadr did it, al Khoei's followers think former Ba'athists are responsible. The CPA shut down al Sadr's newspaper (Al Hawza) for publishing "anti-American propaganda".

al Sadr has officially disbanded his militia and joined the political process in a truce last June. Couple months later, US forces attempted to arrest him (during a truce, mind you). His supporters holed up in Najaf until a cease fire was renegotated by the most powerful cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Prime Minister Iyad Allawi broke off negotations in order to try to militarily defeat al Sadr, who has been gaining popularity. Remember the giant push into Sahr City last October 2004? Essentially, it was Prime Minister Allawi pulling a power game, using US forces as his muscle.

al Sahr is probably the biggest 'legitimate' (ie, non-insurgent) threat to US control of Iraq. He wants Iraq to be a theocracy. He's not as widely respected or supported as Ayatollah al Sistani, but he's the most widely respected power not directly friendly to the US. Wiping him out would basically destroy the US's credibility that the US intends to turn Iraq into a democracy. To be fair, he has mostly disbanded his militia and publically asked his supporters to work within the system instead of attacking US forces.


The so-called "insurgents" are religious madmen. They have no real political platform and have no coherent objection to the current government other than the fact that it's supported by "infidels." Killing everyone who isn't Muslim is not a legitimate or even coherent political agenda. It's simply insanity, like the Khmer Rouge plan to return to the "year zero." They aren't mad because we ousted their leaders. They're mad because we belong to the wrong faith. Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives. But there is a cadre of animals who want only more and more blood. These people cannot be reasoned with or talked down. They must simply be slaughtered like pigs.

Erm, I respectfully disagree. Kinda. There is no one group that makes up all the insurgents. Shiite militants like al Sadr make up one kind. Sunni former Ba'athists make up another. Relatively unorganized Iraqi's pissed at American forces for various reasons make up another. Foreign wahabbis make up another.

I assume you're describing the Wahabbis, which are the religious wackos. "Al Qaeda" (that is, bin Laden's branch of Wahabbism) is not likely operating in Iraq in large numbers. The Wahabbis are, however. They're killing a lot more Muslims than Americans, by the way. For every one American they've ever killed, they've killed at least ten Muslims.

If I may be blunt, Cosmoline, I think you're oversimplifying things. Yea, the Wahabbis 'foot soldiers' aren't likely to surrender and need to be killed roughly in the manner you described. However, blowing away their foot soldiers will only slow down their movement, not stop it. Common foot soldiers can be and are easily replaced. To make an analogy, it's like cutting limbs off a tree. Sure, it hurts the tree but doesn't kill it.

In order to strike the roots, one would have to destroy the popularity and any legitimacy of Wahabbism. To basically make people not want to subscribe to Wahabbism. How to accomplish this? Dealing with Saudi Arabia, which is the largest supporter of Wahabbism. Fostering resistance movements in Iran. (NOT invading. Invading Iran would be a bad move.) Countering Wahabbi religious indoctrination schools with more moderate schools. Going after their funding. Psychological warfare and propaganda. Basically, dozens of strategies to weaken their core and make them destroy themselves.

Just my opinion.

[coylh]

The second best way to stop terrorism is to give the terrorists F16 fighters, Apache helicopters, and M1 tanks.

If you want them to fight conventionally, give them conventional weapons.

[javafiend]

A terrorist is a man with a bomb but no airforce.

[ravinraven]

Since the 23rd of June, IF I'D had to rethink my position on suicide bombing, WOULD THAT make me a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

rr

[Bruce H]

The distinction is real simple. A freedom fighter restricts their targeting to political amd military targets, with heavy enphasis on political. Terrorists kill anything to make a media statement.

[Lone_Gunman]

Bruce, by your definition, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a terrorist act. We did not restrict the bomb to political or military targets, and we certainly wanted to make a statement to the Japanese.

I would propose that a "terrorist" is anyone the US government says.

I am not sticking up for the insurgents in Iraq, or terrorists anywhere. I am just saying that we decide who is, and is not a terrorist.

When our government support Bin Laden's efforts to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80's, he was a freedom fighter. Now that he is fighting us, he is a terrrorist. His philosophy really hasn't changed.

Is there any doubt that the Minute Men of 1776 would be labeled "domestic terrorists" if they existed today?

[ravinraven]

A buddy called and said that my post earlier sounded like I'd taken up suicide bombing. After we got done laughing, he said that I'll probably hae the feds in hear looking for my suicide belt.

Dumb me. I didn't know you had to wear a belt to be a career suicide bomber. Just goes to show you that my ex-wife was right when she said I had the fashion awareness of a bug.

===============
About A-bombs and terrorists. At least we've tried to get our bombs to be more target specific rather that "shot gun."

It was a fact that not too long ago--Civil War times--people would go out with picnic baskets to watch the war on nice days. That sure beats TV.

rr

[DRZinn]

Bruce, by your definition, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a terrorist act. We did not restrict the bomb to political or military targets, and we certainly wanted to make a statement to the Japanese.
It was a city of military value. The nature of war in that time included far far more collateral damage than we are (or should be) now willing to inflict, but it's still collateral damage.

When our government support Bin Laden's efforts to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80's, he was a freedom fighter. Now that he is fighting us, he is a terrrorist. His philosophy really hasn't changed.When Russia invaded Afghanistan to expand its empire, anyone fighting to get them out was a freedom fighter (subject to the rather obvious exception that the Afghani government didn't exactly allow a whole lot of freedom). When planes flew into buildings and killed 3000 civilians with no military target, that's terrorism.

[Lone_Gunman]

When Russia invaded Afghanistan to expand its empire, anyone fighting to get them out was a freedom fighter (subject to the rather obvious exception that the Afghani government didn't exactly allow a whole lot of freedom). When planes flew into buildings and killed 3000 civilians with no military target, that's terrorism.

In Afghanistan during the Russian invasion, Bin Laden was what we would today call a "foreign fighter". How was he different from Syrians that have slipped across the Iraqi border to wage war as part of the insurgency in Iraq?

Bin Laden was not a freedom fighter when he was fighting the Russians. Bin Laden was not fighting for freedom. His actions help create the most anti-freedom government in the world (the Taliban). He was fighting off what he perceived to be a foreign invasion of infidels. It was a religous war for him, not one concerned with freedom.

It was a city of military value. The nature of war in that time included far far more collateral damage than we are (or should be) now willing to inflict, but it's still collateral damage.

Hiroshima had military value, no doubt. However, Tokyo had more military value, and we chose not to nuke it. The Japanese did not capitulate because we destroyed the military value of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They capitulated because of the "shock and awe" ofthe nuclear attack. More than military or industrial damage, the "terror" value of nuclear weapons is what ended WWII. I am not trying at all to say nuking Japan was terrorism. Quite the contrary in fact. What I am doing here is disagreeing with the definition proposed by BruceH. I think his definition of terrorist is too broad and non-specific.

[ravinraven]

...that we didn't go after Tokyo because we'd pretty much toasted it already and the two Nuke targets were pristine. I think they'd been left off the fire bomb list to increase the before and after picture when the bomb finally got invented.

We did kill a lot more people in the fire aids, but that was multi-ship, multi-night raids.

rr

[Onmilo]

I thought we were the Freedom fighters!!??

[withergyld]

I have recently returned to the US after spending 14 months in Iraq.

Most of the tactics the "insurgents" are using do not really hurt the US, they hurt the Iraqi people. Blowing up the oil pipelines, IP's and ING's don't hurt the US, they hurt other Iraqis. The Iraqi people are getting tired of the "insurgents" blowing up or killing other Iraqis. The insurgents do not care about the Iraqi people or what the Iraqi people want. Based on thier tactics I would definitely call them terrorists.

[DRZinn]

In Afghanistan during the Russian invasion, Bin Laden was what we would today call a "foreign fighter". How was he different from Syrians that have slipped across the Iraqi border to wage war as part of the insurgency in Iraq?

Bin Laden was not a freedom fighter when he was fighting the Russians. Bin Laden was not fighting for freedom.I realize that freedom was not his motivation. But he was fighting an enemy that had invaded the country in order to subjugate it. (Spare me the Iraq comparisons, y'all, we got in and gave it back as soon as we could. The Soviets had no such plans.) That makes him a "freedom fighter" by the loose definition I'm using.

The Syrians fighting in Iraq are now fighting an Iraqi government freely elected by Iraqis. Big difference.

[Lone_Gunman]

Doc, I think we have only given Iraq back to the Iraqis in a very superficial way. As long as our troops are propping up a puppet government (not that there is anything wrong with that), we really haven't given anything back, I see no signs of that changing anytime soon, given Bush's recent speech on the matter.

[DRZinn]

I think we have only given Iraq back to the Iraqis in a very superficial way. As long as our troops are propping up a puppet government (not that there is anything wrong with that), we really haven't given anything back,Puppet government being that which the Iraqis elected? "Superficial" being that they now control their own affairs and we provide security while training them to take that over as well? Sorry, no dice.

Yes, it'll be a while. That's how these things work.

[Lone_Gunman]

Doc, I think we just see things differently regarding the Iraqi government. First, the Iraqis have not really elected a government, just interim leaders. They still have not drafted a constitution.

I think their interim leaders are exactly who we wanted them to be. I think their constitution will read exactly what we want it to read. There is no way our government is going to wage this war, and then actually let the Iraqis pick who they want. I think they will get to make a choice, but it will be from our list of pre-approved candidates.

Democracy does not work to our advantage in the mid-east. The Iranians are a "democracy". They just elected a new leader. He won with 61% of the vote. This election was by all measures legitimate, not the sham kind of thing that Saddam used to have. Their newly elected leader is a fundamentalist muslim who may have participated in the US Embassy hostage incident in the 70s.

He is exactly the kind of person who we don't want in charge of Iraq, regardless of how the Iraqis vote.

We are doing a lot more over there than "providing security". We are holding the whole country together right now.

[ravinraven]

"First, the Iraqis have not really elected a government, just interim leaders. They still have not drafted a constitution. "

Sortta like the gov't our the first eight [I think] American presidents presided over. And now I can't think of the names of any of them. >>Google>>Continental Congress>> and out come the answers.

Would we have been better off to just let Saddam have Quait [sp?] buy oil from him much like the oil-for-food crowd did? Let these rats murder their own people and whatever. If the people finally can throw these dictators off by themselves, they probably would appreciate the freedom they themselves created more than that which is given to them with a minimum of pain and a lot of the trial and error we went thru with the Articles before the Constitution.

Beats me. I've heard this argued.

If someone in 1776 had got off his boat and booted the Brits out and set up the gov't we started with, we might well have gone out of business years ago. The "I don't have a nickle in it" syndronme is deadly. That syndrome is what makes the loony left possible and it's why they are mad about the war and our reaction to 9/11. A lot of people are waking up to the fact that they do "have a nickle in it" and are getting interested. At least for a short time.

rr

[Lone_Gunman]

Sigh... raven I think you are missing the point...

My point was that the Iraqis are not independent at this time. They do not have a constitution. They have interim leaders that were chosen from a list of people that we helped put on the ballot. We are the power that is really in control.

This means that we still have a lot of political and military influence in Iraq, and that they are not able to stand as a unified nation right now without us.

I realize it takes time to create a constitution and new government. My point was that until that happens, the US will still maintain a lot of control over what happens in Iraq, and probably will even after for a while. I am not blaming them for it taking a while to put together their government. The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly. But until they get something put together, its a stretch to say our influence their has diminished.

I am not sure you know what you are talking about when you are referring to the first 8 presidents and the Continental Congress. I think you may be extremely confused. No president, let alone eight of them, ever presided over the Contintental Congress. What are you talking about?

The Continental Congress was disbanded and replaced with the US Congress in 1788 or 1789 (can't remember which off the top of my head). George Washington took office in 1789. The Continental Congress was gone by this time.

Sortta like the gov't our the first eight [I think] American presidents presided over. And now I can't think of the names of any of them. >>Google>>Continental Congress>> and out come the answers.

What do you mean?

[RevDisk]

Would we have been better off to just let Saddam have Quait [sp?] buy oil from him much like the oil-for-food crowd did? Let these rats murder their own people and whatever. If the people finally can throw these dictators off by themselves, they probably would appreciate the freedom they themselves created more than that which is given to them with a minimum of pain and a lot of the trial and error we went thru with the Articles before the Constitution.

Kuwait.


"If the people do not rise up and take freedom for themselves, they do not deserve it nor will they keep it." - my old counterinsurgency instructor

[ravinraven]

"My point was that until that happens, the US will still maintain a lot of control over what happens in Iraq, and probably will even after for a while."

Yes. That is for sure and that is what keeps the little worry light lit in the back of my mind. And the line the next poster said about not taking control and earning freedom for them selves.

I'll do a bit of googling later tonight when I have time and come up with the presidents of the CC. I remember some old trivial pursuit question or something. "Who was the first American president?" Can't remember. Have CRS disease. Can't Remember Sh*t.

rr

[Dannyboy]

Oh yeah, they're "freedom fighters" all right. Ummm, yeah, that's it.

http://www.terradaily.com/2005/050621125924.cnk4zkg8.html
West Baghdad parched after insurgents hit water supply
BAGHDAD (AFP) Jun 21, 2005
The west of the Iraqi capital suffered from severe water shortages Tuesday amid searing summer temperatures following an attack against a water purification station.

The station in the northern suburb of Taji was "sabotaged by terrorists, affecting the distribution of drinking water on the west bank of the Tigris river which runs through the capital, a government statement said.

An official from the Baghdad water company who wished to remain anonymous said the station had been hit by anti-tank rockets late Saturday and that one million people had been left without water as temperatures climbed to 41 degrees (almost 106 F).

"This attack has caused lots of problems for Baghdad residents, especially for innocent children and the elderly who need a lot of water at this time of year," the statement said.

Baghdad, which has around 6.5 million inhabitants, faces repeated water shortages owing to obsolete installations.

While around 97 percent of homes and businesses are hooked up to the city's water system, only 63 percent receive water on a regular basis, according to UN figures.

"The aim of this attack is to make Iraqis' lives more difficult," the government said.

Repairs had begun on Sunday and normal supplies were expected to resume on Wednesday.

At the capital's Yarmuk hospital, tanker trucks helped ensure an adequate supply of water.

In the affected neighborhoods, firetrucks distributed water but warned residents not to drink it, while many crossed the Tigris to stay with friends or relatives.

Yup, they sure are.

[javafiend]

When Russia invaded Afghanistan to expand its empire

The Russians were invited in by the Afghan government.

Oh yeah, they're "freedom fighters" all right. Ummm, yeah, that's it.

Who precisely are you quoting? Who refers to the Iraqi insurgents as "freedom fighters"?

[coylh]

I'm a freedom fighter; you're an insurgent; he's a bloody terrorist. ;)

[Jeff Timm]

You might want to read the following: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12001023_1

From the above, "As Fouad Ajami wrote in the Wall Street Journal on May 16, upon returning from a visit to the region:

The insurgents will do what they are good at. But no one really believes that those dispensers of death can turn back the clock. . . . By a twist of fate, the one Arab country that had seemed ever marked for brutality and sorrow now stands poised on the frontier of a new political world.

The elections’ effect on the wider Arab world was likewise both immediate and profound. Millions of Arabs watched on television as Iraqis exercised their political rights, and were moved to ask the obvious question: why are Iraqis the only Arabs voting in free elections—and doing so, moreover, under American aegis and protection? The rest is so well known as barely to merit repeating. The Beirut spring. Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Open demonstrations and the beginnings of political competition in Egypt. Women’s suffrage in Kuwait. Small but significant steps toward democratization in the Gulf. Bashar Assad’s declared intent to legalize political parties in Syria, purge the ruling Baath party, sponsor free municipal elections in 2007, and move toward a market economy."

Gee, maybe people really want to be free. Imagine that.

Geoff
Who notes the alternatives to mideast democracy are, extermination, colonization or reservation (as in the last time the USofA was confronted with violent tribal groups.

[Lone_Gunman]

why are Iraqis the only Arabs voting in free elections

Not true.

The elections in Iran are, by UN measures anyway, free and open. They just elected a fundamentalist layman who may have been involved in the US Embassy hostage affair of the 1970's. He won with 61% of the vote. This was no sham election like Saddam used to have. He wants to keep Iran on a strict path of fundamentalist Islam, and wants to continue developing their nuclear program. Now tell me again why democracy in Iran is good?

Democracy in the Middle East may or may not be a good idea for us. It depends on whether or not we can control their election process and get our friends there elected. So far, we have done that with Iraq and Afghanistan (thus my previous reference as puppet states). However, if the majority of people in a country are fundamentalist, and vote for a fundamentalist candidate, then we are out of luck.

This may or may not be an issue in Iraq, since it is supposedly more secular than other middle eastern nations, but then so was Iran prior to Ayatollah Khomenei.

[javafiend]

Iran elected an ultra-conservative religious fanatic - just like we did last election.

:neener:

[bjbarron]

They didn't start yesterday...this has been going on since Feb 21, 1970 (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bjbarron/blogfiles/RadicalIslamist.pdf).

We had our head in the sand. Were they freedom fighters 35 odd years ago? Why are they any less terrorist *********s now than they were 3 decades ago?

We didn't crush them like bugs then, and 9/11 was the result. They are not just going to go away if we do nothing...that hasn't worked for longer than most of you have been alive.

You want to consider them freedom fighters, fine...do so. Why should you be any different than the appeasers of the past 35 years. Personally, I've been at war since Nov 21, 1979.

Kill them all.

[Ezekiel]

I've been at war since Nov 21, 1979.

Your link goes to an interesting document. I mean, it's propoganda and implies that -- in every case -- American deaths were the root cause of each action [wrong], but it is still an interesting document. :banghead:

[Lone_Gunman]

Personally, I've been at war since Nov 21, 1979.

So tell me, what have you been doing to fight this war?

[gc70]

The elections in Iran are, by UN measures anyway, free and open.The UN must not mind very much whether the people have a real choice, as long as they get to choose between some names on a ballot.
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/17/iran.elections/) -- Nearly half the members of Iran's parliament are criticizing the Islamic nation's supreme leader for ordering general elections to go ahead Friday despite widespread belief that they will not be free or fair.

"Is not your insistence on holding the elections as scheduled anything but putting your seal of approval on the illegal actions of the Guardian Council?" they asked supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a six-page open letter.

The Guardian Council, a constitutional body dominated by hard-line clergymen, has barred thousands of reformist candidates from standing in the elections. The reformists accuse the hard-liners of staging a parliamentary coup, saying that the elections will not be free or fair in such circumstances.

[gc70]

I keep seeing puzzled references to the insurgents in Iraq killing other Muslims. That's fairly easily explained - they aren't in their eyes. The Sunnis and Wahabis see the Shi'ites and Kurds as not being "real" Muslims, therefore they fall into the Koran's other catchall category for people - infidels, right alongside Americans.

[Lone_Gunman]

gc70,


The winner only got 61% of the vote. Not exactly like Saddam's sham elections where he would always get 95+%. The opposition was expected to win (or so the US thought). He was more pro-Western, and not of the fundamentalist variety.

I have no way of knowing if their elections were rigged. Just like I don't know if ours are.

Sorry, the people of Iran appear to have spoken, and it doesn't look like its to our favor.

[gc70]

Lone_Gunman, check the story date. It was about last year's Parlaimentary elections. The people got to vote, after nearly half of the candidates had been denied a place on the ballot. The predictable result was an overwhelming radical majority in Parlaiment.

As to the recent Presidential election in Iran, the people got to choose between a "moderate-leaning" candidate and a radical. That's like having a US Presidential election where the candidates were John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

[bjbarron]

Your link goes to an interesting document. I mean, it's propoganda and implies that -- in every case -- American deaths were the root cause of each action [wrong], but it is still an interesting document.

Well, it was put out by the VFW, and yes it only mentions Americans. I have read that it's India that has the highest death count in ref their fighting with Pakistan...in the many tens of thousands.

Obviously American deaths were not the root cause of the early actions...that's my point.

So tell me, what have you been doing to fight this war?

OK, lets see. Military service and actions in the Med to support anti-terrorist units...which doesn't include the scars I got on the other side of the world. Two sons in the service, Army and Marines. My voting record. Support of organizations supporting a strong military and national defense. Sending money, goods, and software to jarheads and CIA weenies I personally know serving in the ME. Support for organizations trying to bring women's rights to the Middle East including supporting individuals financially. Teaching college students on my campus that there is another side to the liberal pap they hear every day. Talking to each and every person who shows interest about the dangers of these dirtbags.

Sorry if that ain't enough, but my name ain't Rambo...

[Lone_Gunman]

bjbarron, you may not be Rambo, but thats close enough for me. Good job. Sounds like you put your money where your mouth is.

But gc70, I am confused. You are claiming the presidential election in Iran is not genuine because the Parliamentary elections were questionable last year?

Also, when you say "As to the recent Presidential election in Iraq", do you really mean Iran?

[ravinraven]

"...where the candidates were John Kerry and Hillary Clinton."

ohmigod!

rr

[gc70]

But gc70, I am confused. You are claiming the presidential election in Iran is not genuine because the Parliamentary elections were questionable last year?I am reasonably sure that the people of Iran were free to choose between the available presidential candidates, but last year's elections clearly showed that the availability of candidates is strictly controlled. How would you characterize such elections?

[Thanks for catching the Iran/Iraq typo]