I don’t support the Iraqi resistance, but I’m certainly not surprised by it. Anyone who thought we would be universally greeted by marching bands and flowers wasn’t thinking. It’s their country; we invaded it. I’m against the demonization of the resistance, well, except when they do demonic things. Killing soldiers is a perfectly valid goal for a resistance. If the U.S. was invaded to relieve us from the cruel oppression of George Bush, despite my personal feelings about Bush, I would certainly take up arms against the invaders. I would hope all Americans would.
That said, it’s perfectly obvious that what we’re doing there isn’t working. I don’t for a moment suggest that we instantly abandon them to their own devices, but we need to seriously rethink ways and means. The fact that serious resistance is still taking place after a year tells me that there is plenty of support on the ground for the resistors. Why is what we’re doing not working? is the question. What can we change to lessen the support for resistance? is the followup question.
Yes, because one’s convenience justifies the aggression. “I don’t want to wait until I have a case because by then it might be too hot or too cold. I want to invade now because now is the right time for me whether I have a reason or not.” :rolleyes:
Look, if you want to pick fights and go against the entire world wide world then fine but don’t whine when the enemy doesn’t roll over as you’d like.
Learn from GWB and say “bring it on!”
But don’t complain when they accept the challenge.
My position on the war the whole time has been, “Bad war, good for the Iraqis that Saddam will be removed, however.” With the understanding that even those Iraqis who, by necessity in the secrecy of their hearts, opposed Saddam probably didn’t “hate” The West (read USA if you like) but certainly “seemed to feel better when they’re not around,” I suggest that resistance would have been much reduced if (a) it really was about WMD and they were found, or even used against the invasion forces or civilians (b) the stated objective was to capture and/or kill Saddam et.al. And of course, we had exited upon the completion of the stated objective.
We can talk all day about how we let the Iraqis down after GWI by leting Saddam take back the country and crush the ensuing uprisings without so much as a finger waved at him from the US. Had we done something about that, had we changed our operation’s objectives “on the fly” and decided that we’d give the people of Iraq a courtesy flush (Saddam IS our turd, after all), had the US done ANYTHING at all to show that GWI really was a war against Saddam & not the people of Iraq, GWII would likely have been better received and gained broader popular support (meaning less resistance & less popular support for the resistance) from “Abbas alIraq”.
And as for:
… <<INIGO IS SEETHING…PLEASE WAIT>>
Dude, as one who has always been a bit “left of center” that remark registers in my mind as being in the same unnameable category as “…these aren’t the droids we’re looking for.” <<INIGO will now walk the hypocricy tightrope…and likely fall off>> You seem to have swallowed the same worm that all you other pro-Bush people have. You will intentionaly blind yourself to the evil incarnation that is the POTUS in order to maintain the rank and file structure that is the Republican party–to no other end than to point your scrawny, bloody, greasy fingers at the chaos that is “The Left.”
To put it in PIT terms: <<INIGO douses ** New Iskander** with gasoline>> Open your eyes, shovel the wax out of your ears, and shut your fucking piehole about what a bunch of dirty rotten cocksuckers those Iraqi resistors are until you develop a shred of empathy and reflect on the hell they’ve been through, how long they’ve endured it (25+ YEARS), at whose hands (Saddam’s), and because of who’s political meddlings (USA’s). How dare you!
“Bring it on…” indeed.I wonder how the families of the dead and maimed soldiers feel about that now,eh?It’s pretty damn easy to talk tough when you know that you sure as shit are not going to be the one doing the fighting.
The brave men and women who are there facing danger and death have my full support…I can’t say the same towards GWB.
So you’re finding that Asymmetric Warfare isn’t your cup of tea, and you just want the bastards to cut it out? Tough-titties, you’re going to have to make them cut it out, and it’s not going to be pretty.
Well, now, it seems New Isk has finally found an irrefutable point to make. At least I think so, the fog is a bit thick.
Let’s just say that the Canadians took in thier minds to invade the U.S., with the announced intention of preventing the further export of rap music. Despite any personal sympathy I may have with this, I would still be resentful, and would most likely align myself with whatever resistance movement offered the most credibility at the least direct personal risk. If they were to suddenly announce that thier original rationale was bogus, they were really intent on preventing the spread of bullfighting, it wouldn’t be likely to change much. PETA might defect, but that would be about it. So, yeah, I guess this time he’s finally got something: they don’t want us there, never wanted us there, our seductive charm as a people notwithstanding.
As pleased as I am at Isky’s apparent progress, my pleasure is tinged with regret. As irrefutable as his somewhat pedestrian insight is, it doesn’t seem to offer much in terms of actionable intelligence. Were someone trying to kill me, I think I would be inclined to postpone considerations of motivation until I was safely out of range. But maybe that’s just me. I doubt it, but maybe.
On a less significant issue, it is my understanding that hummus is not a dish common to Iraqi cuisine (such as it is). It is primarily a Lebanese food, unless I’m very much mistaken. Can’t claim to know much about it, I never eat Lebanese food, it makes me feel awful.
The US invaded a sovereign country based on outright lies and deceit.
They went ahead and did this in spite of open opposition from the great majority of the rest of the world.
In order to get their mojo on, they broke the very same treaties of international law they helped create, agreed to uphold and endorsed.
This unjustified war of agression and dubious legality has already butchered literally thousands of innocent Iraqis of every age and sex – no doubt great show that Shock & Awe business if you happen to be watching Fox from the comfort of your living room. Doubt the survivers feel the same way.
Given the above, the Neanderthal at hand now wishes to “inform us” with pretzel-like contortions of logic – or maybe that should read "convulsions’ – that there are no Iraqi resistors. Nope, they are just a bunch of malcontents, hellbent on killing the very benefactors that put on such a beautiful fireworks display over their nation. After all, we mustn’t forget that is not “official US policy to count the Iraqi dead.”
Well, you know what? I’d tell you to get bent, but as it’s obvious you’re already suffering from an extreme case of cranio-rectal inversion, best I can hope for is that you go in for corrective surgery ASAP.
Step back a moment, dipshit. The administration had all but covered it’s ears and started yelling “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA” by the time the troops were in the desert. And frankly, our closest friends who were opposed were doing the same. The time to build a coalition was before forces were in the arena. The administration’s ham-handed approach to diplomacy at that critical time only assured that it would be left to persue it’s agenda on it’s own.
There were enough arguments to get rid of Saddam without having to make a pigheaded “i’ll do it myself” approach. By steady heavy diplomatic pressure and the assuaging of our allies concerns, a coalition may well have been created. UN approval gained, and a shitty situation averted. It’s pretty fucking simple really, most presidents we’ve had know about diplomacy. Even Congress and the Senate made the mistake of thinking that Bush would make a good go at diplomacy. He didn’t give it a try. His aversion to attempting a diplomatic solution that would spared American lives, created a multinational transitional force in Iraq, and kept the U.S. out of the “Q” word is worthy of our disdain.
I don’t think Saddam would have backed down. He’s a scumbag of epic proportions. American soldiers would more than likely made up the majority of a fighting force arrayed to overthrow him. American blood would have been shed. Innocent Iraqis still would have died. But the damage done to America’s standing in the world would not have been as damaged. Damaged at a time when we need all the help we can get on the war on terrorism. Support in the Iraqi population for a resistance may not have been as strong. And the transition to an independant Iraqi government would have been eased.
So we’ re left to wonder what alterior motives he had for persuing the war. All the evidence shows that he would have known that there wasn’t enough of a threat that a year’s worth of high pressure diplomacy couldn’t have been attempted. So even the American public is left skeptical. And you expect the Iraqis not to be??
I think that those involved in the Iraqi resistance are a bunch of fucked up Bathists and Whahabbis who watched too many Arab versions of Red Dawn when they were growing up, and they’re pretty fucking stupid not to see that Saddam wasn’t a very pleasent person. BUT. They wouldn’t be able to move as freely through the population if the average Iraqi saw the war as the world ridding their country of a despot, and not as one of dubious merit.
America has a very easy way out of Iraq through the UN. All it has to do is go to the UN, hat in hand, and say they are willing to hand over the authority to the UN. If Saddam is no longer in charge and WMD are nowhere to be found, then what is the problem? The problem is that the USA wants to rule Iraq with a puppet government and the USA wants to keep bases in Iraq. That is why it will not transfer authority to the UN. The US wants to be the colonial power in Iraq. But if you want to call the tune you have to pay the band.
The assertions that the UN would not be good at nation-building in Iraq are now laughable as it is hard to imagine a worse job than the US is doing.
I see I didn’t make it sufficiently clear for the audience, let me try once more, “…don’t call those bastards “legitimate resistance”, simply because you hate Bush.” That’s the whole point. Stop saying, “Nice to have Saddam gone, but what about UN, what about WMD?”.
All of you might feel smug and confident in your hypocrisy; to me you look like a bunch of munchkins, chattering, “Nice to have the witch gone, but let us deplore the violence of hurricanes.” Stop harping about “legality” of Bush actions or “missing WMD”, make a choice: are you absolutely against the invasion or for it? Because even if UN were “finagled” and WMD were found, the same number of US soldiers and Iraqis were going to die, and we all would be exactly at the point where we are right now.
I realize that you all have sizeable posteriors, but no ass is big enough to sit on two chairs at the opposite sides of the world.
I’m was and am absolutely against it, because all pre-war evidence pointed toward it being unnecessary, and I knew shit like this was going to end up happening.
US govt. should have anticipated a resistance, either from Baathists, Al-Qaeda, ordinary Iraqis, whoever.
The Iraqi people might be happy that Saddam is gone BUT:
a. Distrust the US admin’s motives (hell, most of the world does)
b. Resent an occupation - national pride etc
c. Angry at the slow recovery of infrastructure
d. Unhappy about the security conditions
(d) is pertinent because the resistance is aiming to turn the Iraqi people against the US forces… and it looks like they are succeeding.
Clearly, the US admin must have thought through each of the possibilities above and come up with multiple plans to solve each problem — but I don’t see them doing anything as yet except keep saying “we will stay the course”.
Just one: Are you always that slow, Jack? Because I stated from the get-go that I have no quarrel with those who always opposed the war; I respect your position. My quarrel is with those who say, “Yeah, everybody supports Saddam removal, but it doesn’t change anything because UN fidn’t approve, WMD were not found and Bush is still an idiot.” With all due respect, get out of the way, Jack, don’t clutter the bandwidth, give us some fighting room.
The point is it were US soldiers marooned in the desert and Bush adm. was responsible for them, while other countries could continue to play diplomacy games with impunity. Of course there were two ways out: invade or leave. The order could’ve been given to go home, WH could issue a statement, “Fuck UN and all its fucking resolutions, next time we get hit we just nuke something”, INS could be set to arrest and deport all UN personnel out of the country in 24 hours… I’d support that too.
One of the points I’m trying to make is that there is a major disconnect between perception of US and Iraqi public about the whole affair. Our quibbles about UN approval and WMD mean nothing to Iraqis, especially those that are dead set against us. How we feel doesn’t translate into Iraq situation at all, so it is naive for you to derive any vindication for your position from what Iraqis resistance is doing.
You’re a sadly deluded man. They’re “legitimate resistance” because they’re willing to fight us and kill us. Shrub’s got nothing to do with that, nor do WMD’s, nor does the UN.
Your whining about their tactics being unfair makes you sound like a wimp. Are you a wimp? If not, buck up and take your fucking medicine. You asked for it.
Well, that unsubstantiated bit about the Iraqi resistance fighting for something “more horrible than anything they ever dreamed of” is either sheer hubris on your part, or whining in disguise. What is it you think they’re fighting for?