What twisted logic? What do I have to do to keep you from flying off the handle and remain able reason? I gave you the possibility that there might be a popular insurgency in Iraq, growing more and more anti-American as time goes. I’m only trying to get at the possible roots of this. I am not satisfied with facile explanations that really explain nothing, that’s all. Saying that we alienate anonimous Arabs by killing anonimous Arabs means nothing and explains nothing. If we do indeed alienate Arabs it is by failing to understand them. As much as I understand human nature, people fight most readily when they percieve to be denigrated, when you do something demeaning to them. Killing someone’s enemies is not demeaning. Ignoring someone’s wishes and aspirations is demeaning. If there is indeed popular insurgency in Iraq, the roots of it might be found there.
Sometime when people feel threatened they will also respond with violence.
The killing of one’s countrymen might be seen as threatening by some Iraqis.
Especially given that we have had a less than stellar record of sorting “the good Iraqis” from “the bad Iraqis,” an Iraqi might worry that our powers of discrimination may fail when it comes to him and his, even if they are all “the good Iraqis.”
Perhaps some Iraqis’ aspirations involve the withdrawal of US troops.
This is not a good analogy. The Nazis were attacking and killing people inside and outside their own country when the war began. Who was Iraq attacking? they didn’t even have the weapons [that Bushco said they had] to fight back with. WW2 was at least based on fact, while the current war with Iraq was based upon lies and more lies. Who benefits from people being killed for a lie?
Comic relief time? Ann Arbor professor cracking open his Little Red Book to find support for his notion of Fallujah in the wisdom of Chairman Mao.
Priceless. And sharks swim in a sea of “supportive” sea life. How infinitely wise. Let us remember, though, that Mao was not as much a popular guerilla leader as a most ruthless and cunning War-lord. He also said that all power comes from a muzzle of a gun. Perhaps that will throw more light on the situation of Fallujah civilians vis-a-vis the insurgents.
‘Few hundred thousands’ is my estimate of hard-core Baath leadership that was required to subdue the whole of Iraq under Saddam’s cult. ‘Few hundred thousands’ killed in battle is not genocide, but executed is genocide. I agree, genocide is not acceptable. Still, the place and manner of killing makes a lot of difference, doesn’t it?
Mr. Mao was not the only one to note that a successful guerrilla campaign depends on the support of the populace.
IIRC, an esteemed Mr. Lawrence was also among the many who made similar observations.
He was indeed a part of a guerilla movement.
For example?
I acknowledged that already.
There’s always the exception that comfirms the rule.
Witness the above post and you’ll note that I rightfully invoked the similitude between Isk’s disgusting bloodlust and The Final Solution without falling victim to the much-invoked Godwin’s Law.
Scary only in the sense that he’s hardly the only rightwinger who “thinks” that way.
First, as Orwell said, “Even Hitler had good reasons.”
Second, Saddam was terrorizing Iraqis all the time, and on the outside attacked Iran and Kuwait, before being disabled in 1991.
Third, yes there were many lies, so many that nobody can find any truth on either side.
British propaganda is the best of all.
Speaking of Orwell, this quote of his seems much more fitting for the OP:
**
This is the case in any war, however nobody asked “How can we win WWI or WWII if we continue to kill German people?”
And the USA cared SO much about this that they waited until the next century to take action?
Like Americans after 9/11 for example.
You know that if the Brits back then thought like you… just about every founding father would have been shot or run away. Probably a good part of the rebellious elite too. Dirty insurgent colonials indeed.
While they do make “a lot” of difference, they are not the sole or even sufficiently determining factors for making a distinction between warfare and genocide. The goal of the killing under discussion is not to achieve a political aim as in war, rather it is to kill a group of people. That a targetted group takes up arms to defend itself does not negate the genocidal nature of such an endeavor.
If you’ll notice, while there’s is explicit mention of the intention, there’s no mention of either the place or manner of killing made in this conventional definition:
“… genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Further, reaching the desired goal of a few hundred thousand dead Baathis might be problematic as the estimates of the insurgency range well below even a single hundred thousand. If these extra quarter million or so Baathis are not already willing to become members of an insurgency, why should we force their hand?
Entirely aside from the question of genocide- even if wiping out a few hundred thousand Baathis would make Iraqis grateful and appreciative, it seems that it might have to be done with knives instead of aerial armaments as the latter tend to exact a much higher price from the Iraqis we’re trying to ingratiate ourselves with. Perhaps the loss of loved ones incidental to killing Baathis could lead some to decide that the defeat of the Baath party was not worth the price paid. So far we have not demonstrated a preference to engage in such discriminate killing as is done by knife blade. This shows Iraqis that as far as the Us is concerned the lives of the Iraqi civilians are not worth the additional risk to the lives of US soldiers that a campaign of killing that was more discriminate would entail.
If Iraqis thought of themselves as members of their families and clans first and as members of political parties etc only in a tertiary manner, would it change your calculus of Iraqi killing?
I don’t often use :rolleyes: but now seems like an appropriate moment.
Perhaps you’re merely being facetious.
Are you trying to imply in your own way that successful insurgencies do not require a cooperative populace?
I’m not at all sure how this isn’t a non sequitur.
You asked why media didn’t make a distinction between the dead who were former members of the Baath party and those who were not. What does this have to do with WWI or II?
Why are members of Team Bush associating with and raising funds for the terrorist organization Hussein used for “terrorizing Iraqis all the time”?
Riddle me that anyone who wishes.
No, seriously, give me an example from history of a docile populace provoked to violent revolt by sudden threat. You will usually find that populace was in all-out revolt already, which the threat of violent suppression might further exacerbate.
That was a tactical maneuver to befuddle our Irish and Welsh Dopers, so I could get a breather. OK, seriously I would say that successful insurgency requires considerable support from at least 20-30% of population.
The very approach is completely different then and now.
Whence the discussion of revolution?
The situations are different as well, we weren’t fighting an insurgency in a country we had already defeated and occupied during WWI or WWII.
Your WWII analogy is ridiculously flawed and shows a shallow understanding of what is going on.