Uk General; Insurgents 'right to take on US'

[issues]

One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Its all from perspective.

To us they are terrorists and always will be considered so. The insurgents ARE fighting to rule their country, which is free from american occupation. Regardless of how evil that government will be if they achieve that they could be considered freedom fighters.

Arguable. If the insurgents were so hellbent on fighting for their country they wouldn't be killing their own innocent countrymen in suicide attacks. They don't want freedom, they want power and for the people of Iraq to be ruled as THEY deem fit not for the people of Iraq to rule themselves. Sure they have all the right to fight the U.S. military but they aren't doing it for any truer methods then just for killing.

[morteduzionism]

Arguable. If the insurgents were so hellbent on fighting for their country they wouldn't be killing their own innocent countrymen in suicide attacks.

Sunnis don't consider Shi'a to be "innocent"...do they?

[Ma'ahes]

Only problem though Karnaric, is that they're just post-poning the length that the US "occupies" Iraq. If they'd just let us get in, rebuild, and get out, things would be great and they could blast the hell outta a shiny new city. Democracies these days aren't really known for keeping colonies....

[Erik]

I agree that they have every right to fight US forces, but not innocent civilians.

I don't think every insurgency group targets civilians though.
That's how America likes to see it: everybody opposing them is a terrorist.
But I think some groups only tarket US forces, others only civilians, and others a little bit of both.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

I agree that they have every right to fight US forces, but not innocent civilians.

I don't think every insurgency group targets civilians though.
That's how America likes to see it: everybody opposing them is a terrorist.
But I think some groups only tarket US forces, others only civilians, and others a little bit of both.

I agree on the first point. The Baathists were militarily over-thrown so they have a right to an armed resistance.

Interestingly though, the civilian-killers are the Al-Qaeda people and the fanatical Shi'a groups. There have been rifts between groups because the Baathists are secularists and pro-civilian while Al-Qaeda kills civilians so that a civil war starts in Iraq. They both use different strategies but with the same end-goal, however.

[danzig]

I don't think every insurgency group targets civilians though.
That's how America likes to see it: everybody opposing them is a terrorist.
But I think some groups only tarket US forces, others only civilians, and others a little bit of both.

Maybe not but the fact is they are the most successful elements of the insurgency. Not to downplay the deaths of 3000 of our troops but the fact is the number is basically meaningless if you are comparing insurgency deathtolls vs US death tolls. When the US leaves are any insurgent leaders going to proudly proclaim how they drove off the Americans and it only took us killing 100,000 of you to do it! Not exactly sure Id define that as a noble freedom fighting effort, the slaughter of your own that results in external political pressure making an enemy you cant actually defeat leave. Even if there were absolutely no ethnic/religious conflict in Iraq that alone would make it impossible for any level of peace or stability for a long time. Imagine no French involvement at Yorkdown and Washington's army slaughtered the population of Williamsburg and the British watched and decided this isnt worth it and left. Id imagine Washington's farewell address would have been quite different.

And correction that is how you think America likes to see it. You'd be suprise to know many of us are alot smarter than the little video snippets of Fox news you occasionally see.

[Kennylz]

Erik, I'd like to agree with you, but I've heard in many reports that the death tolls of innocent civilians from terrorist attacks often dwarf that of actual US soldier casualties. Its simply easier to kill non-combatants, if you are a militant, and if they are not with you, they are against you.

Bush, and Osama both took that stance, but it happens to be Al Queda who are car-bombing them for the fact.

[Erik]

Erik, I'd like to agree with you, but I've heard in many reports that the death tolls of innocent civilians from terrorist attacks often dwarf that of actual US soldier casualties.

So?
This still doesn't mean every insurgent is a terrorist.
It doesn't even mean that a single insurgent is a terrorists.

Insurgents and terrorists can be two completely separate groups of people for all we know.

Its simply easier to kill non-combatants, if you are a militant, and if they are not with you, they are against you.

If the goal of your militant group is just to liberate Iraq, then it makes no sense to kill your own countrymen.
Only groups who want to divide Iraq, or put their own sect in charge, will target civilians, but not every group is necessarily like that.

When the US leaves are any insurgent leaders going to proudly proclaim how they drove off the Americans and it only took us killing 100,000 of you to do it! Not exactly sure Id define that as a noble freedom fighting effort

If fighting for your freedom, even when the odds and casualty rates are stacking against you isn't noble then I don't know what is.

the slaughter of your own that results in external political pressure making an enemy you cant actually defeat leave.

America wants to leave because they are taking casualties of their own ,not because of the Iraqi casualties.

The Iraqi casualties are a reason to STAY in Iraq because if America pull out you can only expect the casualty rates amongst Iraqi's to increase. (or at best stay the same).

[danzig]

If the goal of your militant group is just to liberate Iraq, then it makes no sense to kill your own countrymen.
Only groups who want to divide Iraq, or put their own sect in charge, will target civilians, but not every group is necessarily like that.

But again they are the most SUCCESSFUL group in Iraq, they are the ones producing results however horrible those results are. So it brings up the question what IS the goals of these groups and how in the world could they ever be successful with so vastly different agendas. It's why comparison of Iraq to Vietnam fail so miserably imo, the North Vietnamese however brutal they were to civilian populations they viewed as traitors fought with a specific united goal in mind.

If fighting for your freedom, even when the odds and casualty rates are stacking against you isn't noble then I don't know what is.

What freedom? As I said there is nothing to indicate there is any group in Iraqi fighting for 'freedom for Iraqis' but rather fighting for revenge against other groups in Iraq, hatred of the US or fighting so that at some point they will be the one at the top of the food chain.

America wants to leave because they are taking casualties of their own ,not because of the Iraqi casualties.

Bzzt wrong and shows your lack of understanding of the US. Americans want o leave Iraq because it is a mess with no end in sight, because they turn on the news and see another car blowing up killing 120 people and wonder what are we doing, where is the end. 3000 dead (and deathtolls in general) US soldiers are simply a sound bite used by politicians. The lack of any light at the end of the tunnel so to speak is what has turned public opinion against this and its where the Bush admin has failed so miserably.

The Iraqi casualties are a reason to STAY in Iraq because if America pull out you can only expect the casualty rates amongst Iraqi's to increase. (or at best stay the same).

Not when there is no tangible results being produced not when the only thing Iraq looks like is an unending mind grinder. That is the heart of the American public turning against support of Iraq. Mind you as Ive said repeatedly Im against simply abandoning Iraq since we made the mess but even I'm beginning to admit its tough to keep that stance when what is needed is some measurable improvements in the country.

[Erik]

Bzzt wrong and shows your lack of understanding of the US. Americans want o leave Iraq because it is a mess with no end in sight, because they turn on the news and see another car blowing up killing 120 people and wonder what are we doing, where is the end.

A lack of results, by itself, is never a reason to pull out.

Only after you compare the (lack of) results with the costs do you have a reason to leave.
If no Americans were killed and it wasn't costing any tax money, then why pull out even if there were no results at all?

And it's not like America does nothing good in Iraq.
Having US troops there is still better than not having them there.
It's the costs that make the cost/benefit analysis tip over to the wrong side.

It's not a matter of understanding America or not, it's a matter of logics.

Sunnis don't consider Shi'a to be "innocent"...do they?

I think they consider them innocent unless they carry weapons.
But they don't consider them "their own innocents", it's the other sides innocents to them.

The same applies to people who claimed that Saddam gassed "his own people" - he did no such thing, he gassed Kurds and Shi'ites, he didn't gas anyone who he considered "his own people".

[danzig]

A lack of results, by itself, is never a reason to pull out.

I dont agree with pulling out of Iraq but I dont know how you can say that. If there is no measure of success why would someone want to continue with a course of action that is producing nothing tangible? That applies to warfare and pretty much everything else, if something isnt making any progress or show any indication that it WILL make progress what is the point? It becomes a vacuum that consumes and produces nothing. If there was any level of success in Iraq that could be seen you would find alot more americans open to accepting it but you cant expect any nation especially western to support open ended conflict with hasnt produced anything that can be seen as positive. It goes back to why I said 3000 dead is meaningless, if 3000 have died and Iraq looked like it was on the right track then we wouldnt even be discussing those deaths it could more easily be accepted as the cost of war. No one goes around for example *****ing about the deathtolls of marines in the pacific during WW2 or deaths in Europe because it produced something, there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Its the only valid comparison of Vietnam to Iraq imo, there is no light and the blame for that falls on the Bush admin.

Only after you compare the (lack of) results with the costs do you have a reason to leave.
If no Americans were killed and it wasn't costing any tax money, then why pull out even if there were no results at all?

Yes but they are being killed and far more Iraqis ontop of costing billions of dollars so where is the reason to stay? Some Americans are dying, alot of Iraqis are dying and if estimates pan out it will cost a grand total of 500 billion dollars. You cant exactly expect any rational person to go gee we should keep going.

And it's not like America does nothing good in Iraq.
Having US troops there is still better than not having them there.
It's the costs that make the cost/benefit analysis tip over to the wrong side.

You know as well as I do no western nation has that will to endure that. Its why military engagements like this are foolish unless you plan to commit. If we applied how we wage war today to past conflicts we would be doomed. Things like this require willpower no western nation is willing to commit to, whether its Iraq, Afganistan or even dealing with Iran.

It's not a matter of understanding America or not, it's a matter of logics.

Has everything to do with it, as I said the 3000 dead are a political tool, a sound bite something for the media to talk to. The deaths would be more easily accepted if Iraq was on a course of progress. After all you cant expect to engage in a conflict and not absorb deaths since it is called warfare.

The same applies to people who claimed that Saddam gassed "his own people" - he did no such thing, he gassed Kurds and Shi'ites, he didn't gas anyone who he considered "his own people".

Nonsense, he was the ruler of Iraq hence by definition every Iraqi citizen was 'his own people'.

[Hells Bells]

hmm if the uk steps out of line, we mite as well finish our revolution and get rid of the monarchy fer em. make em a federal territory, itd be better than having a monarchy.

[jankren]

By the way what has the 20000 troops surge changed in Iraq? Has any of the promises before the surge come true? Has the violence gone down?

Only problem though Karnaric, is that they're just post-poning the length that the US "occupies" Iraq. If they'd just let us get in, rebuild, and get out, things would be great and they could blast the hell outta a shiny new city. Democracies these days aren't really known for keeping colonies....

Are you sure if Iraq is finally stabilized ALL of the troops would be pulled out of Iraq?

[Hjalmar]

The US was at that time, merely a territory of the British Empire. In this period of history all citizens of an Empire were subject to its ruler, and their rebellion was simply the desire to be independent.

The War in Iraq was never intended to annex land, or insofar as results have demonstrated, made the US more wealthy. If anything the war has simply been extremely costly and unproductive. I more am of the mind that the Iraqis desire complete independence for 3 reasons:

1) So they can murder each other, willy nilly and without our intervention.
2) Incompetent US handling and governing of their country.
3) No-one likes foreign armies marching through their streets.

For my part, I'd be happy to let the Iraqis murder each other for the next half a century rather than waste our money and manpower.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

For my part, I'd be happy to let the Iraqis murder each other for the next half a century rather than waste our money and manpower.

Bingo! The Euphrates used to run red with blood during the high Middle Ages. It seems that the Iraqis haven't learnt their lesson yet. I now firmly believe that the Iraqis DESERVE people like Saddam, Al-Saddar and Al-Bush.

[Beowulf47]

Bingo! The Euphrates used to run red with blood during the high Middle Ages. It seems that the Iraqis haven't learnt their lesson yet. I now firmly believe that the Iraqis DESERVE people like Saddam, Al-Saddar and Al-Bush.

This is a tempting stance, but my girlfriend is an Iraqi Kurd, and it is increasingly difficult for me to see things that way. The Kurds deserve better, if nothing else we should help the protect themselves.

[killerchinchilla]

This is a tempting stance, but my girlfriend is an Iraqi Kurd, and it is increasingly difficult for me to see things that way. The Kurds deserve better, if nothing else we should help the protect themselves.

My understanding is that the Kurds are being left pretty much alone in the mess thats now Iraqi. I even recall that they were advertising the Kurdish area as a holiday destination for the rest of the country.

On the comparison with the AWI I think the revolutionaries could be considered 'insurgents' in modern terms, and if it was in a modern situation they'd have more than likely used 'terrorist' tactics to fight the British.

[Каие]

The US was at that time, merely a territory of the British Empire. In this period of history all citizens of an Empire were subject to its ruler, and their rebellion was simply the desire to be independent.

The War in Iraq was never intended to annex land, or insofar as results have demonstrated, made the US more wealthy. If anything the war has simply been extremely costly and unproductive. I more am of the mind that the Iraqis desire complete independence for 3 reasons:

You see, i 'm Algerian, both my parents are, and in Algeria had to gain it's independance in the 50's and 60's. The french were extremley cruel and brutal. Instead of wasting their forces in all out war they made Algerians fight eachother. This meant that the Algerians were also brutal and cruel. The difference was that Francde being a western country in the west the algerian 'unsurgency' was seen as terrorrists attacking a stable country whereas in fact from my family's point of view ;ife in algeria under france wasnot life at all and they'd rather fight and die for their country from unjust occupation and government. Teh fight was bloody and we gained independance adn to this day the French havn't said sorry for anything.

The point im making is that in Afghanistan and Iraq the chances are the people see this as an occupation and are 'treating' it as a fight for independance the different insurgent groups are treating eachother as the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing even though they don't entirley agree.

[PacSubCom]

95% of Iraqis consider their oil the reason for the invasion. Shiites were oppressed by a sunni dictatorship for decades. And what's more, the USA have supported the sunni dictatorship for a long time, giving them carte blanche to crack down apon the shiites. And now it's payback time. Payback on the sunnis, that is. Resistance against the foreign invader, who wants to control the middle east, that is a given.

The sunnis fear being oppressed by a shiite majority, fear the payback, and therefore fight for a better share of the power. Add to the religious differences the political ones.

Al-Quaida, whoever that is, tries to get some influence too, sending people and money to fight the invader/the Iraqi political enemy to make friends with some of the groups.

Other countries also want their friends to win, and send them money to fight on. These other countries is everyone with a stake in the middle east, including the US, China and Russia. Not just Iran.

I fully expect the Americans to be there for decades, that was the mission to begin with.

[Chaigidel]

the usa should just move all our forces into the iraqi kurdistan-- and help those that like us and wish to be helped and help them establish a mighty secular country from which we can administer bombs to the middle-east when they get out of line.--omgbbq