The noble Iraqi 'insurgents'

[lehighguy]

I'll respectfully disagree. On two grounds.

1) The UN ran away when its headquarters got bombed. How is it suppose to keep security.

2) Why would the insurgency stop if the US left. Why wouldn't they jsut try to take power. Why wouldn't there be a civil war. What makes you believe the insurgents even care about Iraq. Thier actions so far indicate they only care about themselves.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"The US ultimate goal is to set up a successful functioning democracy in Iraq. Its goal is to make the country a better place to live for Iraqi citizens."

[/ QUOTE ]
All sides on all wars say things like this, so the rhetoric you're parroting here conveys no information. It is absurd on its face because the basis for the war was fraudulent, and consisted of huge majorities of Americans who believed, as a result of propaganda saturation, that the government of Iraq both facilitated the 9/11 attacks and was imminently preparing to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons. Your claim, therefore, is that American democracy had to be subverted in order to create democracy in Iraq, based on the professed love of democracy by the people responsible for the former. Although "democracy in Iraq" is constantly reiterated by pundits and politicians, especially on TV, nobody with any sense believes it. What you'll find, if you bother to look, is that "democracy," as the term is actually used, means "in parallel with or subservient to U.S. interests."

Iraq is subject to a host of laws and officials put into place by a U.S.-appointed Viceroy and not subject to the recent elections. Political life in Iraq is not dictated by "Iraqi citizens" but by oil revenues and access to recontruction aid, which in turn are controlled by the U.S. This is what our politicians constantly refer to as "democracy," "liberation" or "freedom."

If, however, Iraq manages to elect parties who don't see things the U.S. way, you can expect a different song from U.S. officials. Like the one they sing about Venezuela, a democracy with a popular leader: "Democracy is not only elections; it’s promoting governance, access to education, opportunities for all” (Condoleza Rice). But does Rice really care about "access to education" in Venezuela? She continues: "A democratic process is not built with easy solutions that seem good, but rather based in economic reality." There it is. "Economic reality" as opposed to what the locals find "easy" compared to the demands and desires of its democracy-loving neighbor to the north. Like the need to spend oil revenues on things that help the U.S. (repatriated capital investment, in the habit of our anti-democratic Saudi friends), rather than wasting it on popular projects (the "easy solutions") at home.

You suggestion that the U.S., alone among world states, selflessly seeks out bad government to create power for those with not influence over U.S. government is naive.

Your suggestion that the U.S., with its vast powers, must kill tens of thousands to improve foreign lives is ludicrous.

Your suggestion that people should tolerate the U.S.'s killing of thousands because it's polticians assert noble goals is morally bankrupt (and it makes no difference if some of those that shoot back are even worse).

As for your analogy to "beating the crap" out of a friend to improve his life, change it to "napalming one of his kids" and it would be apropos to the violence the U.S. has fomented against Iraq. Justifying war on the sole grounds of "improving lives" is like justifying rape if the victim recovers cash from her attacker.

[natedogg]

Chris, there is a thing called "intent" you know.

The bottom line is that one side is deliberately targeting innocent people for death and mayhem. This is the *intent* of their actions.

As objectionable as the US presence in Iraq is, no sane person can argue that the coalition forces have deliberately massacred civilians. Civilians have been killed, but if you can't undertsand the moral difference between collateral damage and terror attacks, you are hopeless.

I imagine you'll castigate me for being a Bush boot licker so let me inform you now that I don't support the war. But I'm still capable of thinking clearly and anyone with any sense can recognize the moral difference based on intent.

natedogg

[ACPlayer]

I too will disagree.

1. If the UN agreed to take on the security at the request of the Iraqi govt, then they (the UN) would not run away.
2. Frankly the only reason we care about the reasons for the Iraqi insurgents is because our troops are over there. By removing the troops we remove our worry about the reasons for the insurgency.

But, if you ask me -- yes the insurgents care about Iraq. Clearly their view of the Iraq is different from the theocracy that Sistani is planning. You could, prehaps, liken the insurgents to the American insurgents fighting against the British view of the colonies in the new world. These guys are fighting the American view of the Iraqi colony - at least in some of their minds.

For an interesting take on post war Iraqi reconstruction to the reconstruction of the South after the civil war see this

[ACPlayer]

no sane person can argue that the coalition forces have deliberately massacred civilians.

Of course the coalition forces have deliberately massacred civilians. We deliberately went into this war, we deliberately did so hastily without adequate post war planning, we deliberated and knew that many civilians would be killed. We had our carefully deliberated reasons. We knew that civilians would be targets.

I dont suppose you are suggesting that the insurgents are exploding bombs because they enjoy setting bombs. They are doing it to achieve some deliberated goals (much as we did).

[lehighguy]

I really can't understand how you can believe they care about Iraq when a majority of thier targets are Iraqi civilians and infastructure. Children, women, doctors, anyone. Nothing about thier actions indicates to me they give a rats ass about anything other then running thier own little Afghanistan.

[lehighguy]

What are the insurgents goals? Why are they taking thier current actions to achieve them?

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
We deliberately went into this war, we deliberately did so hastily without adequate post war planning, we deliberated and knew that many civilians would be killed. We had our carefully deliberated reasons. We knew that civilians would be targets.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exacly my thoughts, that's why I have trouble with the moral differentiation. If I have to choose between the moral attitude of soldiers invading a country; and insurgents trying to get rid of those invaders. The option is an easy one for me.

[natedogg]

As I suspected. It appears that many of those who oppose the Iraq war have lost all rational thought in their anger and frustration. It's sad to see.

It's too bad they are not intelligent enough to understand the difference between the moral justification for a war, and the morality of the tactics used in the prosecution of that war.

natedogg

[elscorcho768]

natedogg, you are now my new favorite poster. you clearly understand that there is a moral distinction between what the us soldiers are doing and what the insurgents are doing. the fact that so many people oppose the war, bush, american foreign policy, and israel does not upset me in the least. the fact that they use such irrational arguments and have no moral clarity is what really disturbs me. You oppose the war, I support it, but I respect your opinion much more than most of the posters on this forum, right wingers included.