Are they paid? Are they armed? Are they US soldiers? What else are they?
Are you saying that there aren’t any?
I must be misunderstanding you.
Agreed that it is unjustifiable, as the boy idiot, chosen by god himself, invaded under false pretenses. I want the forces to leave as well, as at last counting it has cost each American around 1000 bucks. Probably cost me around 7000 bucks. That said, if you think the Iraqi insurgents or the Viet Cong are anything other than ruthless pieces of shit, well, god help you.
You mean the troops guarding the concentration camps peppered throughout Bagdad?
No there isn’t. In a full fledge civil war you’ll have thousands of people dying every month. The Shia are not currently fighting back. There have been small groups of Shia retaliating against the Sunnis, but for the most part the well armed Shia militias are not rampaging through Sunni neighborhoods. The very well armed Kurd forces are currently backing US and Iraqi national government efforts, but the Kurds have some serious gripes against the Sunnis who pushed the Kurds from their homes a couple of decades ago.
The US presence is certainly drawing the Jihadis into the country. Perhaps when the US leaves, that will end or perhaps the Jihadis will move in and set up a base of operations like they did in Afghanistan. Either way, without the presence of coalition security forces, no one is going to be sending any food or medical supplies into Iraq, no one is going to send funds that will pay Iraqis to do their jobs at police stations, medical faclilites, water facilities, and power plants.
Most Sunnis are not willing to submit to a Shia lead government. They never have. Coalition forces leave and there will be a war and the small bit of civilization that is left there will collapse. More people will die from disease and food shortages then actual violence, but that won’t make them feel any better about it.
I don’t think the Iraqis are bestial. I think the Iraqis are a large group of people that were arbitrarily thrown together by colonial power politics. They are a people with some very long standing ethnic tensions, which is quite common throughout the world. Their history has shown an unwillingness of the minority Sunnis to give any other group any meaningful control within this artificially created nation-state and they have shown a large willingness to use violence to keep it that way.
The US has decapitated the country. Rightly or wrongly the coalition is the only authority left. What do you think will happen if that suddenly goes away given Iraq’s past? What will happen will look a lot like what happened in Bosnia only on a larger scale.
Perhaps they would not have been as welcome if your insurgency was multi-ethnic based and outsider insurgents were targeting your group.
May I ask where you are from?
Some, yes. But not the majority of the country, the Shia.
Do you get a buzz over being cryptic?
Unfortunately it can lead to you being misunderstood.
Trying stating your point clearly.
Thanks.
“Trying stating” might be a bad idea on second thoughts, just “Try”. :smack:
Having just come back from Vietnam and having traveled through the country I can confirm that a lot of the VC/VM troops did act like pieces of shit, as did their political masters. They were however without question fighting ruthless pieces of shit as well both on the Southern Vietnam side and the Americans.
There were NO good guys in that war.
So it’s not yet a full three-way throwdown. I understand that, but when one entire ethnic group is targeting others, and thousands are being killed, I think it’s pretty bad. I agree it’s not as bad as it could be, though.
Sounds like a three-way split-up is the best thing all round, then.
South Africa. The insurgency was multi-ethnic (different Black tribes, Coloureds, Indians and whites). I admit I don’t see the relevance of that, though.
Understood. They have very little legitimacy, I agree. But they do have some…
There is nothing cryptic about anything I’m saying. It is not the case that hoards of people are demanding that I explain myself. I am being sarcastic because sarcasm is all that MrDibble’s argument merits. I oppose the war, and have since the beginning. But I recognize that the US occupation forces in Iraq are nothing like classic occupation forces that have been the object of insurgency in the past, like the Nazis and the Soviets. For one thing, despite how wrongminded the plan, American soldiers are attempting to rebuild the country — things like schools, power plants, water treatment facilities, and so on. Yes, there are random abuses, but generally the plan is to help people out. This was not the case when brown shirts were shipping Jews back to Berlin, or when the KGB was building a barbed wire and stone wall around its client holdings. Is that clear enough?
“Armed civilian bodyguard of civilians” =/= “mercenary.”
Regardless of your inane personal definition of the terms.
Now, if you were to be talking about individuals hired from overseas for the express purpose of fighting in armed conflict, as opposed to functioning as a bodyguard, then, miracle of miracles, you’d actually have a point.
I am talking about exactly that.
Wow. This entire thread is just sad.
Mr Dribble just answer this. What are the goals of the insurgency? That’s the problem. That is where the moral equivalency lies. I believe; I know; that the American soldiers there, actually believed, at one time, that they were there to make a better life for Iraqis. They didn’t go roaring in thinking “I’m a-gonna kill me some rag-heads”. Of course, now their goal is; just not-get-dead, and try to make sure that their friends; don’t-get-dead.
The insurgency just seems to want to kill people. They don’t really have a goal other than killing people with whom they disagree . I don’t know if folks whose goal seems to be: kill the foreigners, kill those who work with the foreigners, kill the other religious sect, and kill civilians as a means of distraction, are really folks with whom you want to align yourself.
I know your reaction will be that they want the Americans out. However, they know, they have to know, that the Americans would leave a whole lot faster if they could get some security in order, get the infrastructure in order, and get a stable government in place. If the insurgents would knock it the fuck off, the Americans would leave.
Thanks, that now makes perfect sense and I agree with you entirely.
As to the mercenary question here is a quote from the link I provided:
It’s by Jack Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary talking about Foreign Offfice use of companies like the Control Risks Group, who I briefly worked for. I don’t know how else you would describe this activity but as mercenary. Just because it’s a big company employed by the government doesn’t change that. The Dogs of War have just gone corporate, that’s all.
I understand this, for most US soldiers, but the question isn’t what the goal of the US soldier on the ground is, it’s “what’s the goal of the occupation as an entity”
I’m with them on the “kill the invaders and those who work with the invaders” threads, but not the rest.
I’m afraid that is not the rest of the world’s experience of American eagerness-to-leave. So no, I don’t agree that they “have to know” that.
Light strand should post more often. I wish I had put everything that way. And Ithaka, I owe you an apology for being so terse with you. Sorry.
That is a bit naive… after all if the americans leave a stable and naturally pro-american government that would mean failure for the jihadists. Bush would probably claim victory too. They don’t just want to kill people… they want to destabilize what is fast becoming a Shia Republic.
Besides American troops in Iraq make for good recruiment too. If they do in fact leave… the more religiously bent insurgents wouldn’t have the same incentive to act or recruits to blow up.
Don’t fret, it’s words on a screen - doesn’t bother me.
They’d be wrong.
Oh, please do tell us all the wonderful things that the humanitarian insurgents have done to make the world a better place. Asshole.