Is U.S. an invading force in Iraq? Do Iraqis have a right to defend selves

[prolesunited]

A continuing theme in the debates about ANSWER and their stance on Iraq is that the group is encouraging the killing of U.S. troops. I thought I would turn the question the question around slightly and seek some opinions here.

First, did the U.S. unilaterally invade a sovereign nation or was action justified? If you say it was justified, on what grounds?

Second, which is probably related to your perspective on the first, what do you think the appropriate course of action is for the Iraqi people? Should they accept our control and hope for the best? Or, are they within their rights to fight for their sovereignty?

For the bonus round, I'll throw this one in there. The U.S. DOES possess WMDs. What if the European Union gave us an ultimatum, to turn in our weapons or they would declare war on us? Would you fight if foreign troops landed on our soil?

[KG]

1. ah, the big conundrum

the US celebrates its history of citizens taking up arms, and killing the soldiers of an oppressive imperialist power. the british - dubbed them 'rebels' the US now honors them as 'patriots'.

but when the it's the US soldiers taking fire cause they are the invading imperialist force, those taking up arms against them aren't 'patriots' defending their country - they're terrorists.

role reversal sucks sometimes.

[prolesunited]

5. Conundrum is an excellent word

to use to describe the situation.

That reminds me of this saying:
“One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”

[KG]

14. you see, it works like this

one can be a 'freedom fighter' as long as one doesn't shoot at the US military, because then one becomes a 'terrorist'.

[LeahMira]

2. OK, my answers are...

First, did the U.S. unilaterally invade a sovereign nation or was action justified?

The U.S. invaded. There were still other options available to come to some resolution, so since I believe that force must be a last resort, the invasion was not justified.

Second, which is probably related to your perspective on the first, what do you think the appropriate course of action is for the Iraqi people? Should they accept our control and hope for the best? Or, are they within their rights to fight for their sovereignty?

I think they are within their rights to fight for their sovereignty. However, this is a mixed bag because my understanding is that there are several factions within Iraq. I think that each faction needs to have sovereignty in its own space and with its own people. It seems that some factions do approve of what the U.S. plans while others do not. Each faction should be free to make that choice.

The U.S. DOES possess WMDs. What if the European Union gave us an ultimatum, to turn in our weapons or they would declare war on us? Would you fight if foreign troops landed on our soil?

I would not fight to defend the alleged right of the U.S. to possess WMDs. I would fight for my home and my freedoms.

[zonmoy]

188. my view

If they dont fight our government they will remain a colony until looted of natural resources and probably have our religious right push christianity on them using coercion after it is claimed that "they are terrorists because they are muslims" and that forced conversion to christianity is the answer to that.

[rustydog]

3. Yes America is an invading force. We were wrong to invade

YES the iraqis have every right to defend themselves in any way they see fit to defend their GOD, their FAMILY and their COUNTRY from the foreign invader and occupier who invaded in the name of THEIR God and Country.

That said, this does not mean that I will ever root for Iraqis killing American troops. That in my opinion is the wrong stand to take on this issue.
I will keep protesting our troops continued presence in Iraq and I will continue to hold Bush accountable for the deaths of over 300 troops and the wounding of thosands more AND Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Any soldiers that invades America will be met by me carrying and shooting (far cry of doing a Bush* and hiding) a firearm and I will defend America to the death to repel any invader of MY COUNTRY and I would expect any civilian of any nation on earth to defend their country in the same manner.

[radwriter0555]

111. Yes, the Iraqis have every right to protect themselves from unlawful,

uninvited invasion.

Hands down.

They're right to protect their country. The bush regime was wrong to invade.

[zonmoy]

189. if we are invaded

wouldnt it be as punishment for our actions in other countries. would you really want to fight those that are there to stop the madman in power.

[Mikimouse]

4. I'll bite

Response to the first question: The action constitutes the invasion of a sovereign nation, and a completely disarmed one at that. It is act of a coward and a bully.

Response to the second question: The Iraqi people are absolutely justified in defending their sovereignity.

Response to the third question: There are times I actually wonder about this. I would answer truthfully with a question: Given the current situation, as well as the direction we are taking (the unidirectional media, the regression to the dark ages in terms of equality, etc.), one might ask what is better, to risk one's life for a system that will ultimately turn on its most patriotic and devoted supporters (labeling them as un-American and a threat to the RW state), or to step back and let the EU do what it must to help Americans put things in proper persepctive? In other words, I would have to ask if we are going to be motivated to learn from our historical mistakes, or will it take an invasion on our soil to awaken us from our long-lived percpetion of invulnerability and complacency. Perhaps we have become too accustomed to defining hard-core decisions as those that involve McD's or Burger King for lunch, or which of the new status symbol SUVs we should buy to demonstrate and publicize our 'success'. I suggest that finding out what hunger really is, and having to go without many of the things that we so arrogantly take for granted would be a good thing in the long run. I cannot say what I will or will not do; Circumstances will dictate.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. US is just securing its assets in the region, self-defense is a privilege

that can be bestowed only by the US.

Any opposition or resistance to US operations is terrorism

[washburnidol]

7. well

regardless of right or wrong.


we dont want to be associated with supporting the killing of our own troops.

that would be political suicide.

[prolesunited]

11. Hmm...

"regardless of right or wrong"

You have an interesting moral compass.

[washburnidol]

12. well

I didnt opine either way....how does that relate to my morals?


all I said is that we dont want to be associated with "supporting" Iraqi resistance.


something like that would make us (dems, libs, progs, whoever) look terrible and just give the opposition fuel.

[Ignoramus]

16. Here's to political suicide

Liberty and human life are worth more than politics. Always do the right thing.

What do you call a person that would sacrifice people's lives for political advantage?

[washburnidol]

19. .

I agree about the right thing, I really do.


but the more this kinda stuff gets out.

the worse dems are gonna do.

"What do you call a person that would sacrifice people's lives for political advantage?"


a politician....

[KG]

23. i'd call that person a politician.

right now, that politician is dick cheney.

[Fish Eye]

100. those who sell their souls

to political parties are as bad as those who sell their souls to a nation....

your response made me ill....

[Scott Lee]

8. Pretty straightforward

1.) The USA unilaterally led an illegal (by standards of the UN) invasion of a sovereign nation.

2.) The victims of the invasion, the Iraqi people, are fully within their human rights to fight to repell the invader and resecure their sovereignty. Any people are within such rights.

How they choose to fight is another question. Some may want the "wait and hope for the best" approach while others will seek to actively engage US forces in a military sense. Neither tactic is wrong or immoral on their part.

Note: Supporting the right of the Iraqis to fight a guerilla war to free their nation is not the same as supporting the slaughter of American troops. I have not met one single person in opposition to this war who wishes US troops to remain in Iraq for the specific purpose of getting them killed.

Some on DU have been repulsed and saddened by the fact that US soldiers continue to die in Iraq, yet oddly, these same people have expressed that they wish the Iraqis would stop fighting and killing the home team; going on to accuse those of us who support the right of Iraqis to defend their homeland as "terror supporters".

I suggest to these folks that they are blaming the wrong party. Turn your ire on the Bush clique that had to have this slaughter so badly, and stop blaming those of us that are on the "right" side of the issue. It is a fact that invading troops will die while trying to occupy and subjugate a land not their own. But as the Talking Heads would say, that's "Life During Wartime".

BONUS QUESTION - I would never accept foreign intervention into US internal affairs unless it was a Nazi Germany type situation. Anything short of that would certainly elicit my opposition and armed resistance if need be.

[BigBigBigBear]

9. The Iraqis

should have overthrown Saddam themselves. Bush and Cheney would not have allowed that because it would have allowed the Shia's (and probably Iran) too great a hand in the post-Saddam political landscape.

The Iranians, Phillipinos, Romanians, Nicaraguans and others have done so to equally repressive regimes. I would have been sooner supportive of assisting that than bombing, ripping apart their society, dividing their society, killing thousands of innocents and occupying their nation. The civilians who died had NO DECISION whether or not to give their lives for our imposed political transition - every Iraqi should have had the opportunity to make that decision for themselves.

I am not comfortable with our being the arbiters of what the Iraqis should believe...meaning, treating every Iraqi who detests our presence as a terrorist or "an enemy of freedom." As if, "even in your own damn country, if you're not with us, you're against us..."

Of course Bush and Cheney knew they were disarmed. If they really had those weapons, he would be negotiating with Saddam right now. Saddam would have killed thousands of our sons and daughters if he had the weapons to do so. The only reason we went in is because we knew he couldn't do that.

Seriously, folks....think about it.

[loudnclear]

10. Yes and yes!

Next question.

[ShaneGR]

13. Is blowing up troops via remote control 'defending'???

Who are US forces currently 'attacking?' Seriously, these people are blowing up red cross stations. Soon they'll move on to buses or trains. Yes, I disagreed with going to Iraq... but these people blowing up everyone are no friends of mine.

[CWebster]

40. UN in the past

was used as cover for US spy efforts. Under the auspices of the US, is it possible that Iraqis trust no institutions related to US "efforts"?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. The British didn't like it when our colonist forefathers sniped at them...

...from behind trees and rocks with hunting rifles. Back then that was considered an "unfair" form of combat to those trained on the European battlefields.

We firebombed Dresden during WWII, and nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Israel blew up quite a few innocent people during their quest for independence. The British didn't like that either.

I could think of a thousand more examples to completely invalidate your argument but I'm running out of time tonight.

So, we're dropping smart bombs from jets and using RPVs to target things like wedding parties, and you think blowing up a tank by remote control is unfair?

Who gets to make up the rules of combat...the invader or the invaded?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

96. Yeah, you're right

The ONLY one who cares about American troops on this thread is you. :eyes:

Is it possible to simultaneously hold two complex, conflicting thoughts in your head at the same time? I think there are several posters on this thread who stated the issue quite eloquently. Did you read the other posts?

[Fish Eye]

101. even if the troops

are commiting murder????

i just do not get it.....

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShaneGR]

108. So, as a former vet....

You support bombing American troops, sometimes via suicide?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

192. I support the right of any country that is wrongfully invaded to...

...defend itself in any way that they can. I also support the right of our troops to defend themselves. What is it that you don't seem to be following in this conversation?

Speaking of putting words into someone else's mouth as you tried to do in your last post, are you saying that you would NOT defend American soil using any means possible if we were invaded, illegally or otherwise? If your answer is that you would use everything at your desposal including strapping dynamite to your chest to defend your home and family, why is that any different from what the Iraqis are doing to defend Iraq?

IMHO, you're playing a losing game because every time you make comments like the ones in your latest post, you lose more ground. The primary problem with your argument is that you've backed yourself into the "my troops, right or wrong" corner when there are two distinct parts to this issue. If anyone disagrees with you, your only response has been to ask if your detractors support the death or wounding of American troops. You have been REPEATEDLY TOLD MANY TIMES that nobody on the DU boards supports that line of thought. You are either deliberately playing a game to piss people off, or you aren't paying any attention to what people are repeatedly telling you. Which is it?

The people to blame in this situation are the Squatter-in-Chief and all of his fellow NeoCons for ILLEGALLY taking control of the U. S. government in 2000, and for ILLEGALLY putting our people in harm's way in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They are also to blame for the killing of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, primarily civilians, without having any justification for doing so.

Now, are you going to tell me that you also disagree with my reasoning in the above paragraph?

[ShaneGR]

201. Answer

The people to blame in this situation are the Squatter-in-Chief and all of his fellow NeoCons for ILLEGALLY taking control of the U. S. government in 2000, and for ILLEGALLY putting our people in harm's way in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They are also to blame for the killing of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, primarily civilians, without having any justification for doing so.



Nothing to disagree with there.

I do disagree with supporting attacks on our soldiers.

[markses]

89. Man, that's just bullshit

The US is currently occupying the country. That's force and power, even if it masquerades as peace. Who is the US "attacking" now? Everyone in Iraq, by its very presence.

Your post is actually quite despicable.

[radwriter0555]

113. They're blowing up the entities who aren't invited or welcomed in their

country.

They have that right.

[ShaneGR]

139. Like the red cross???

Seriously, listen to yourself. They have the right to blow up entitities not invited. Ever heard of asking them to leave? I'm talking about relief agencies.

[bpilgrim]

190. when they are on your property/land

yes

peace

[durutti]

206. Not Exactly

I'd imagine the resistance isn't a monolithic entity, but comprised of different factions, some of which target civilians, and others that do not. I would support the latter.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

32. Point out to me exactly WHERE

I said "its cool to murder our sons and daughters, brothers, sisters and friends" or that I "want them dead."

I am sorry you are upset. I did not want this war either and I was out in the streets and talking to people and writing letter and doing everything I could in my power to stop it.

What you seem to be overlooking, it was NOT your fellow DUers who put these soldiers in harm's way. It was Bush and a bunch of spineless Dems. You should be directing your anger at them and not us.

Please don't pin words or feelings on me that I have not expressed.

BTW, I have an 18-year-old son, so you may just get your wish. Perhaps Bush WILL send him over there to die. Would that make YOU happy.

[Selwynn]

37. Are you advocating only non-violent resistance? Yes or no?

If no, then... ?

[prolesunited]

50. I didn't advocate anything

I simply asked questions. You're the one who is making assumptions about my thoughts and feelings here.

But since you are actually asking rather than accusing, I don't advocate violence on either side. I am aligned with the thinking of King and Gandhi.

However, that does not mean I cannot understand situations within a geopolitical context and grasp why actions are taken.

[CWebster]

47. What doesn't make sense to me is

the suggestion that ANSWER advocates killing US troops. Why would they organize a protest to bring home the troops if they didn't care about their well-being as well as Iraqi aspirations? Surely they are aware that US troops are victims as well.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeahMira]

104. Fool?

You're "too upset to type"? You ought to be upset after making such a major fool out of yourself.


It makes a difference if your brother, sister, spouse or child is there.

It is perfectly possible to want two mutually exclusive things at the same time in that kind of situation. I think that being able to accept that about yourself is the mark of an adult... not a fool.

That's to both of you!

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scott Lee]

140. I thought this was a "No Spin Zone"

You ask -

"Please tell me the difference between the following to statements "Iraqis have a right to fight in order to defend themselves" and "I support Iraqis killing US military men and women"

There's a huge difference, if you can manage to cool the emotionalistic nonsense. Not all Iraqi freedom fighting ends up in US deaths. In fact, judging from the numbers (233 attacks on US forces just last week, with something like 6 or 7 deaths) they rarely do.

It is a complete departure from reality to expect an invaded and subjugated people not to want to employ whatever force they see necessary to root out an invader. And yes, that can mean lethal force. What is this odd disconnect going on in some quarters at DU, that see the war as wrong, the Iraqis having the right to defend their freedom and sovereignty, but disapproval when they do so?

Bizarre.

[Blue_Chill]

145. Bizarre

There's a huge difference, if you can manage to cool the emotionalistic nonsense. Not all Iraqi freedom fighting ends up in US deaths. In fact, judging from the numbers (233 attacks on US forces just last week, with something like 6 or 7 deaths) they rarely do.

Ok so then the huge difference is that they aren't very efficient? I'm sorry but even in your answer it's obvious that there is not a huge difference. In fact nothing you wrote proves your statement that there is a huge difference.

What in RESULTS equates to a huge difference. Do both stance not justify attacking and possibly killing americans?


It is a complete departure from reality to expect an invaded and subjugated people not to want to employ whatever force they see necessary to root out an invader.

This is simpley dishonesty. These people were not subjugated by the US. That was their default position. And judging by the facts that they are now allowed to voice their dissention is further proof that if anything the level of oppression is shrinking. Not as fast as some would like, including myself, but never the less their situation is improving compared to that which they were in prior to the US asualt. The US is not the enemy of the Iraqi people, it is far to corrupt to be seen as a liberator by any strecth of the word but it certainly isn't a enemy that requires violence.

And yes, that can mean lethal force. What is this odd disconnect going on in some quarters at DU, that see the war as wrong, the Iraqis having the right to defend their freedom and sovereignty, but disapproval when they do so?

You cannot defend that which you do not have. Iraq was not free prior to US invasion in fact it is more free today then it was under Saddam. They can now assemble and present their views free from threats of death or torture.

[Scott Lee]

176. You sound more Bushist with every post

Ok so then the huge difference is that they aren't very efficient? I'm sorry but even in your answer it's obvious that there is not a huge difference. In fact nothing you wrote proves your statement that there is a huge difference.

What in RESULTS equates to a huge difference. Do both stance not justify attacking and possibly killing americans?

You're making no sense. Do you know, for instance, what the molecular difference between lead and gold is? It's something like the placement of one molecule. Minute. But in RESULTS, whats the difference? Go try trading in a bag of lead for money.

Obviously, "RESULTS" can differ widely with the idea. As it does with the right to push out an invader vs. how many of the invader are actually killed in the end game.

This is simpley dishonesty. These people were not subjugated by the US. That was their default position. And judging by the facts that they are now allowed to voice their dissention is further proof that if anything the level of oppression is shrinking.

Back to the Gandhi quote - true as it ever was. It's not the US's place to determine what governments others can have. And you are walking on mighty shakey ground here, considering you are defending the military acts of a nation that disenfranchised millions of its own voters in the 2000 pResidential election.

You better HOPE the Iraqis dont want to use us as a "democratic" model.


Not as fast as some would like, including myself, but never the less their situation is improving compared to that which they were in prior to the US asualt.

And Hitler put Germans back to work, reduced crime and made the trains run on time.

You sure you want to go there?

The US is not the enemy of the Iraqi people, it is far to corrupt to be seen as a liberator by any strecth of the word but it certainly isn't a enemy that requires violence.

So I'll ask you the same question that others have avoided. What would you have the Iraqis do? Submit like good little puppets? Ask the soldiers nicely to go home? Share with us your grand knowledge of how to become free of a military invader without shedding some of their own blood.

You cannot defend that which you do not have. Iraq was not free prior to US invasion in fact it is more free today then it was under Saddam.

According to whom? You?

They can now assemble and present their views free from threats of death or torture.

Really? Why don't you tell that to all the dead Iraqi protestors in Fallujah, Najaf and other Iraqi cities that found out their calls for a US exit will be met with bullets.

Or better yet, let's ask The Provisional Fuhrer Paul Bremmer to include it in his propaganda speeches to the captive Iraqi TV audience every night.

"Freedom", indeed.

[MSchreader]

92. Yes

I have many friends who are there. A couple are occupation troops (mainly medics). Most of them are Iraqis.

Do you think of them when you tell us to "shut the hell up"? Obviously not. You seem to only think of your son who is over there. Selfish, but I suppose it is understandable. Americans are not known for compassion toward the "enemy".

Meanwhile, your son's comrades -- and perhaps your son, too -- are killing protestors, stealing what little the Iraqi civilians have for their own pleasure, breaking their strikes, looting their neighborhoods, assaulting women and children.

Is any of this justified? No. Do I necessarily hold your son responsible? No, since a lot of these acts are being concocted/encouraged by their officers.

While you scream and cry, "those of you so brazenly and coldly saying its cool to murder our sons and daughters, brothers, sisters and friends are really pathetic", you cheer on the murder of my friends.

In the end, your cheering of the murder of my friends is what encourages the counterattacks on your son, his comrades and my other friends. (Luckily, my friends who are American medical personnel also know the score.)

When you say those of us who think the Iraqi people have the right to expel the occupation troops are "SUPPORT(ing) IRAQIS KILLING YOUR CHILDREN AND FAMILY", what you are really saying is that it is OK for your son and his comrades to kill Iraqi children and families -- including my friends -- and that they are nothing more than today's "gooks".

Get upset. Get mad. But do it for the right reasons.

If you want to really help the situation, encourage your son to talk to the Iraqis he has in his gunsights; ask him to fraternize with them and get to know them. Fraternization between rank-and-file combatants on both sides may be the only way to end this damnable occupation.

Martin

[Blue_Chill]

138. Americans are not known for compassion toward the "enemy"

Interesting statement. Please give me a list of nations known for being more compassionate with their "enemies"

[Scott Lee]

187. unfortunately.....

"Fraternization with the enemy" is a courtmartialing offence. I think it might even be considered treasonous under military law (somebody more familiar with the UCMJ please tell me if I'm wrong).

Otherwise, its a damn good idea.

[benderlane]

202. woah - wait a minute here!

"Meanwhile, your son's comrades -- and perhaps your son, too -- are killing protestors, stealing what little the Iraqi civilians have for their own pleasure, breaking their strikes, looting their neighborhoods, assaulting women and children."

I think you may confusing something here - seriously -

Thats what the dictator your friends might have been supporters of did to anyone who did not support him enough. That is not what US troops do. You know that and I know that.

I only post this to expose a blatant lie. If your friends on the ground in Iraq REALLY had a better life before the United States came in, than they are most likely people who supported the Hussein government and its obvious abuse of basic human rights. Maybe your friends are attempted suicide bombers? If that were the case, I guarantee they will be shot at. Maybe your friends like mass graves? government sponsored rapes? Heck - maybe your friends are the rape unit its self! Maybe thats why you think they are being mistreated!

You might want to clarify who your friends are before making such wild claims of abuse - or, maybe you should take their names, and send them to the US military, which I know would be happy to investigate any inistances of wrong doing, and sentence any soldier guilty to 20 years hard labor in a military prison, or death (yes, we have the death penalty for such abuses of power)

Otherwise, since you are obviously lying - and not very well I might add, please dont BS the boards...

[Fish Eye]

105. calm down

perhaps abstract thinking is not your bag but consider this: it is not the same to say that one believes in the right of self defence so if american solidiers get killed then those who killed them are within their rights to do so....and ...one who believes this actually wants to see ANYONE get killed.

What is beyond me is how anyone could be so weak as to not try to stop someone that they claim to love from going to murder for Bush in the first place....

[RichM]

17. 1) the invasion was 100% unjustified 2) Iraqis totally within their right

to fight & resist.

Bonus round: It would depend on the way in which the EU gave us this ultimatum. The EU are not a bunch of saints, either. They are also imperialists -- just not quite as ruthless as we are, & lacking our quantity of military toys. IOW, they have the same disease that we do -- just not quite as bad a case.

If the EU appeared to be making an aggressive move towards world domination -- merely substituting their ruling elite for ours, by force of arms -- this would be no better than what we are doing today, & I'd oppose it. (ie, I'd fight.) But if the demand for disarmament evolved from a good-faith international movement aimed at global disarmament (the EU included), I'd support it. (ie, I wouldn't fight.)

The question is only hypothetical so it's hard to visualize the details. I'm trying to say: European aggression is no better than US aggression. But real global disarmament is a great goal -- far preferable to anybody's nationalism.

[Selwynn]

18. Edit - should have been nicer. Try this --

When you say this, I'm curious - do you have loved ones currently in Iraq?

[prolesunited]

21. What aren't you seeing here?

I don't ANYONE to die?

BTW, you didn't answer any of the questions.

[Selwynn]

25. BTW - yes I did.

[JanMichael]

22. WTF? I would NEVER hope your kids were there.

What a fucked up attitude.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selwynn]

30. See post number 15 and give me a break

Thanks for the understanding - you don't happen to have a son or daughter in Iraq do you? Maybe you could try to have a little understanding for those who do? It's not easy hearing people in the other thread on this subject - which came up because of the ANSWER thing - litterally say that we should support Iraqis as they kill americans. And its not easy to see that implication here. Unless anyone wants to clarify that they meant through "non-violent resistence only" which I know they didn't.

[JanMichael]

36. You obviously can't see both sides of the coin.

While I get your point I refuse to accept the sins of my country, sorry, not my idea or problem.

So how about this: I'll give you, you, a break if you give me one? That said I'll comment however I see fit on threads like this, independant of your comments. ie. I'll have some sympathy towards your predicament (which is not my doing), and if you don't like it I suppose that's your problem not mine.

K'?

[Selwynn]

39. I don't accept the sins of my county either, nor the murder of my family

Guess what... I can do both.

I can both refuse to accept the sins of my country and fight to change or make ammends for them, and refuse to support the killing of our american children.

[JanMichael]

46. Can you see though that "we" are not everyone?

And that everyone is not "Us"?

And that ultimately any invading army will catch resistance, and while we'd all like to see American troops bomb the shit out of other people's homes and not suffer ONE casualty, the fact is that there will always be people that will simply NOT accept being subjected to another countries dictates?

Would most Americans accept an Invasion with a nice permitted protest? Hell NO they wouldn't.

This doesn't mean I want "our" soldiers killed however it does mean that I understand why they are being killed.

Just liked French troops would be catching crap in Alabama, as an occupying force, regardless of their percieved "good" intentions.

[Selwynn]

51. Yes... I think I'm just too close to it personally.

Not going to post on this thread anymore.. I don't need to be sad tonight.

[JanMichael]

54. I understand what you're saying.

And I can only hope that your loved ones will get out of Bush's hell hole ASAP.

Unharmed both physically and mentally.

Take care and I'm sorry that you're in such a nasty position.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeahMira]

109. Maybe it will help...

... to offer another thought here.

I'm a person who was adopted. After I met my birthmother and heard how hard things were for her at the time, I despise the people who did those things to her and wish that just one person had helped her to keep me and raise me herself as she wanted to do. When I got to know my birthmother I understood a lot more about myself, and thought it might have been easier for me to have been raised by someone whose temperament is more like mine is. At the same time, I know that if that had happened I would not have been part of my adoptive family or ever even known them at all. I love them and would not want to have missed out on being part of their family. I realize that both of those wants are mutually exclusive. Still, there they are.

No one wants any young American man or woman to be in harm's way. At the same time, many can empathize with the Iraqis who are fighting American occupation of their homeland. I think we all realize that we can't have it both ways, but still that doesn't stop anyone from wishing that somehow they could.

I resolved my own dilemmas by damning those individuals who put two sets (my two families) of good people into an adversarial situation instead of bringing them together in a cooperative situation.

I hope that helps a bit.

[NashVegas]

27. Selwynn

You have my sympathy for your circumstance. Perhaps because I and some others are not in your shoes, we are freer to observe from a distance.

It is one thing to pick a fight with someone.

It is another to pick a fight with someone and deny them the right to defend themselves. The Iraqi insurgents wouldn't currently be trying to kill our children if we hadn't shipped them over there.

I hope yours come home safely.

[Selwynn]

35. Is violence and terrorist bombins the only way to defend?

Why can't there be civil disobedience, sabotage, protests, dissent, non-compiance?

Why can't we support the "resistance" by continuing the fight to change policy, to bring our kids home, to restore what we've destroyed in Iraq? Why can't we BOTH condemn the murder of our American children AND condem our wrongful occupation and fight to end it and home and in the polls?

Why do we have to take that next step and act as though we ought to support their murdering of my..

[mike_c]

66. Selwyn, where the hell were you when WE BOMBED THE CRAP...

...out of Baghdad. We've occupied their contry by force of arms and continuing violent repression. We've installed a puppet govrenment and we're working over time on the taxpayer's dime to rip off their most important natural resource. And you begrudge these people the right to fight back?! What would you do in their place? Dissent?

[Selwynn]

146. What I won't do, is support killing of our children (nt)

So all other questions are really irrelevant.

[NashVegas]

70. Why Can't There?

Why can't there be civil disobedience, sabotage, protests, dissent, non-compiance?

Iraq's Rosa Parks and MLK haven't entered the picture yet. And they don't seem likely to anytime soon. I know that sounds flip but that's what it comes down to.

Why can't we support the "resistance" by continuing the fight to change policy, to bring our kids home, to restore what we've destroyed in Iraq?

We are trying. The trouble is that there's this thing called a partisan battle going on and another 12 months and a week before we can get a more thoughtful administration in the White House. You think Bush & Dick & Rummy are going to listen to us? We're a "focus group."

Why can't we BOTH condemn the murder of our American children AND condem our wrongful occupation and fight to end it and home and in the polls?

Why do we have to take that next step and act as though we ought to support their murdering of my..

Most of us are not sitting around and scratching our balls at the thought of GI Joe and Joan on a stretcher. There are some 70 posts in this thread and 33,000 + DU members.

[bearfartinthewoods]

161. psssst.....not all 33000DUers have balls to scratch. eom

[RichM]

61. Look.... with all respect to your feelings, you're confusing the personal

with the political here. This places you in "self-righteous tizzy mode," in which rational discussion is completely impossible. The feelings you express have validity only if the discussion is specifically aimed at exploring personal feelings. If the discussion is about the politics, that's a different discussion, & personal feelings have no place.

It's perfectly possible to feel sympathy for the US soldiers over there at one level, yet to feel sympathy for the Iraqi Resistance fighters at another level. It's unfair & irrational for you to throw a self-righteous tantrum about this, by confusing the personal with the political.

You're right that: THOSE WHO SAY "Iraqis have a right ot defend themselves" ARE REALLY SAYING "I SUPPORT IRAQIS KILLING YOUR CHILDREN AND FAMILY." What you're leaving out is the converse statement: if one's position is based solely on opposing the killing of US soldiers, in effect, one denies Iraqis the right to defend themselves. Both positions have terrible aspects, to be sure, but if we're discussing the politics, the Iraqi's right to self-defense is a higher value than the safety of illegitimate invaders.

Many people who strongly opposed the Vietnam war did so without losing the ability to feel sympathy for the suffering of US soldiers who were dragooned into participating. But sympathy for those individuals should not have obscured the fact that the American side of that conflict was insane aggression, & deserved to be defeated.

[NashVegas]

69. I Wouldn't *Necessarily* Say I Have Sympathy for the Iraqi Fighters

Empathy, yes. Sympathy? I'm not so sure. These are the people who helped Hussein stay in power.

the Iraqi's right to self-defense is a higher value than the safety of illegitimate invaders.

I don't know that I'd put one above the other. It's merely that I accept the possibility of our soldiers getting hurt as a consequence, just like I accept that a kid who puts his hand on a hot stove is going to get burned.

As a US citizen, I do want our country as a whole to come out of this with whatever grace and dignity is possible. I still believe we can find a way to come out of this, if not smelling like a rose, at least not smelling like shit, I just don't think the current administration are competent enough to do it.

[Samaka 3ajiba]

77. I agree 100%

"It's perfectly possible to feel sympathy for the US soldiers over there at one level, yet to feel sympathy for the Iraqi Resistance fighters at another level. It's unfair & irrational for you to throw a self-righteous tantrum about this, by confusing the personal with the political"

That's the bottom line here. Nothing is life is as black or white. Its a very tough and agonizing predicament for those who have friends and relatives serving in Iraq, but that doesn't give them the right to shout down, bully and attempt to silence others who are equally exploring and battling the ethical dilemma of the situation, and trying to consolidate them with their own beliefs and morals.

The day speaking a inalienable truth becomes blasphemy because it offends very real personal sensibilities, or a more general jingoistic, nationalistic pride is the day democracy, and America as we know it is officially dead.

The inalienable truth is that the Iraqis have the right to defend themselves as an occupied people. That truth really hurts. The pain is suffocating for even those of us who don't have anyone in Iraq, let alone those who have loved ones serving there.

[Selwynn]

208. You are absolutely right RichM - thanks for saying it

I was indeed confusing personal with political, and finding rational discussion impossible.


Many people who strongly opposed the Vietnam war did so without losing the ability to feel sympathy for the suffering of US soldiers who were dragooned into participating. But sympathy for those individuals should not have obscured the fact that the American side of that conflict was insane aggression, & deserved to be defeated.


That's right too.
Sel

[MSchreader]

85. My answer to your question

"I'm curious - do you have loved ones currently in Iraq?"

Yes ... on both sides. So you are welcome to say what you want, but facts are facts:

Your son is killing my friends.

Martin

[prolesunited]

93. I think in many people's minds

it comes down to the fact that U.S. lives are worth more than the lives of other people.

The love of one's country is a splendid thing.  But why should love stop at the border?  — Pablo Casals

Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance.  It is also owed to justice and to humanity.  Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. 
— James Bryce

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. 
— George Bernard Shaw

It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world.  The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens. 
— Baha'u'llah

Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him? 
— Blaise Pascal, quoted by Tolstoy in Bethink Yourselves

It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind. 
— Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary

Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind.  We love the land of our nativity, only as we love all other lands.  The interests, rights, and liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us than are those of the whole human race.  Hence we can allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or injury. 
— William Lloyd Garrison, Declaration of Sentiments, Boston Peace Conference, 1838

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world. 
— Eugene V. Debs

http://www.quotegarden.com/patriotism.html

[Scott Lee]

141. Patriotism often masks supremacy and racism

I agree with you completely on that point, and thank you for posting those timely quotations on the subject.

When you start tearing away the layers of the common notion of "patriotism" you arrive at the uncomfortable core of the fruit; a sense that we are superior in every way to other peoples on the planet, that our lives are worth more, that we are the daddy to a planet full of children.

Sick, sick paternalism that fuels the horrors launched against us.

[Blue_Chill]

134. Resist WHAT? You act as if a democracy was toppled!

The invasion removed someone whom the Iraqis wanted to but could NOT resist. The US must leave sooner then later but to say they are within their rights to resist is to say that no power ever again in the future of the world should ever step in to remove a murderous dictator.

When the fuck did the left become the right in supporting these monsters?

Pathetic.

[Scott Lee]

142. It doesn't matter if you disapproved of Hussein

"Ones own bad government is always superior the one imposed by an invader" - Mahatma Gandhi

There are few exceptions to this rule, my own personally being a Nazi Germany type situation where the target country was not only carrying on a genocide but launching a formidable military threat on the rest of the world. Clearly, Hussein's Iraq didn't come close to meeting that critera.

The US supports and demotes these "monsters" according to their own selfish agenda, the people of other nations be damned. Please don't start spouting the Bushist nonsense that seeks to paint us on white horses when in fact we are marred with the blood of millions of foreign victims throughout our Imperial Era.

[Blue_Chill]

147. response

Clearly, Hussein's Iraq didn't come close to meeting that critera.

This is true, however one cannot honestly say that the current goverment in Iraq is worse then Hussien.

The US supports and demotes these "monsters" according to their own selfish agenda, the people of other nations be damned.

Agreed, I am after all Chilean, I know all about this vicious cycle first hand. However if anything I see this as more of a reason to oust these monsters. You must clean up your own mess and had the US bothered to remove Pinochet Chileans would have been spared much suffereing.

Please don't start spouting the Bushist nonsense that seeks to paint us on white horses when in fact we are marred with the blood of millions of foreign victims throughout our Imperial Era

In no way do I seek to make the US look like a hero. We caused the problem in the first place and thus can not claim noble credit for removing it. However I do say that there is no logical reason for seeking to justify terrorism in modern day Iraq as "defending their freedom" being that they had less before then they do now.

[Scott Lee]

173. Oh Bullshit

"However I do say that there is no logical reason for seeking to justify terrorism in modern day Iraq as "defending their freedom" being that they had less before then they do now."

That is the height of blindness. The epitome of oppression is in the military intervention and invasion!

Your attitude smacks of jingoist seflrighteousness - are you sure you're not a Red Stater posing as a "Chilean"?

[JanMichael]

20. NO! They should all get a CapitalOne CC and join the Walmart team!

Go USA!

<chants>USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA,USA, USA, USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go team go!

[KFC]

38. They would go for that in a heartbeat

A nanosecond. Sure beats eating dirt and drinking foul water.

[prolesunited]

43. And just why are they eating dirt

and drinking foul water. Could it be two wars and years of bombing campaigns and sanctions? And if you say that was Saddam's fault and not ours, just who do you think propelled him to power.

There are NO easy answers here.

[KFC]

48. I'm just saying that 99% of them would love to go to Wallmart

Credit card in hand, given the chance. Why the hell not?

[prolesunited]

53. I wouldn't want to go

to WalMart with credit card in hand. Not every person shares the same values. Accumulating stuff and spending money they don't have is not the ultimate goal of everyone.

Are you saying our goal in Iraq should be to build WalMarts and give them credit cards? :shrug:

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

63. Yeah

Iraq would be a much better place if they only could get the latest Britney CD. :eyes:

BTW, don't you think they have their own grocery stores and food suppliers who would be happy to be back in business? Why should we export WalMart to Iraq, so we can put their local mom-and-pop shops out of business just like we've done in small towns throughout the U.S.? Or do you enjoy supporting China and their human rights abuses?

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

64. Damn straight, slick.

Half the population would be popping their clowns instead of killing people. The women could buy some Justin Timberlake to slake their libidos. Then everyone is happy.

[JanMichael]

65. "Einstein" "Slick"...

Hmm. Ok Bubba, whatever you say is golden:-)

[prolesunited]

67. C'mon

didn't you think he argued his points effectively. I've never had anyone call me Einstein before. ;-)

Shouldn't you be getting to bed? Don't you have to get up in the morning and go buy the latest Britney CD at WalMart with your credit card? You don't want anyone to think you're some sort anti-American liberal. :eyes:

[JanMichael]

68. He was sterling in his arguments.

Me? Yea I have to get up at 6:30am EST to make enough jack to go yo-yoing back betwix Sarasota and NC...

Ah the life of a good petite-bourgeois wage slave:-)

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

76. First off

You want to cut the condescending name-calling or did you learn that in the O'Reilly school of debate. It does nothing to further your argument and simply makes you appear shrill and desperate.

I agree Iraq would be better off if Iraqis had water, food, music, books, but why does it necessarily have to emanate from the West. Do you believe our culture and way of life is superior to theirs? Must we eradicate their culture and remake that country in the image of our own?

If you ask me what is best about the U.S., I certainly wouldn't point to WalMart or McDonalds, one a company that does not pay its employees living wages and is openly hostile toward unions and the other that is helping make America fat with crappy food.

[KG]

80. actually, bubba-lips (post #74)

the baghdad airport has one of the highest grossing BurgerKings in the world. but thing still suck in iraq, hambone, so i guess that shoots your theory all to heck.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

82. Thanks, champ

If Burger King is doing well, Quiznos is next. Then Krispy Kreme

Too bad Quiznos went private.

[bearfartinthewoods]

163. i've always wanted to ask...

since we were responsible for putting him in power, why is it so wrong for us to undo the deed and remove him?

[incapsulated]

26. How Ironic

I find it interesting, to say the least, that on this forum a thread gets locked for having the unbearable bad taste to dare question whether we should feel sorry for rich people losing their homes in California.

But a thread ruminating about whether the sons and daughters, family and friends, of other DU posters should be killed and maimed, is perfectly fine.

[Selwynn]

42. I agree.

[CWebster]

29. Iraqis should resist as Palestinians should

But where is this evidence that ANSWER formally advocates killing? That sounds suspect. I don't think they encourage suicide bombers either - although they support the Palestinian struggle.

What are the Palestinians and Iraqis to do when they are even denied the basics--water, electricity, safety? If they were to protest peacefully and lie down in the path of tanks, would the tanks roll right over them? What do the oppressed do when nonviolent struggle doesn't work, do you lie down and take it or do you fight back? Because even if it doesn't make any difference at least you fought back? How come the US can kill without having to be accountable? How many thousands of Iraqis have been killed by America and how come their deaths are never part of the discussion?

I heard a Palestinian quoted "Since we have no dignity in life, we seek an honorable death."

What is a Palestinian or Iraqi to do?

[laura888]

44. "what is a palestinian or Iraqi to do?"

well put. Kuddos.

[laura888]

45. "what is a palestinian or Iraqi to do?"

well put. Kuddos.

[aldian159]

72. in regards to the Palestinian issue

blowing yourself up on a bush full of women and children on the way home from market might not be the best way to get an independant Palestine. just a thought.

The other issue is very messy, but, if someone invaded my home, I'd fight back with a kichten knife, let alone a gun (if i could find one).

[CWebster]

110. And again,

What do you propose the Palestinians do? Stand by while everything is robbed from them---their homes, their lands, their water, their crops, their ability to earn a living, their access to schools, their human rights? The US slaps Israel on the wrists while pumping them up with US taxpayer dollars and the US press suppresses the fact that the death ratio is over 5 times higher for Palestinians than Israelis. And should that be questioned, well, they were all terrorists, and every house flattened was a terrorist house, and every target was harboring a terrorist. And so, the construction of the illegal settlements continue- paid for by the US taxpayer, intentionally kept ignorant of the facts on the ground and focused on suicide bombers, while the US and Israel veto every UN resolution which attempts to address the situation. Israel violates UN resolutions and has kept their own nuclear arms capability under wraps for years...justification enough for us to invade other countries obviously. All along our congress cheers on Israel, they know where their bread is buttered, and even Kucinich is silent rather than risking rousing the ever present spectre of AIPAC. And, don't breathe a word about it otherwise you are Hitler.

Don't tell me powerful Zionist lobbies don't weild power in our government--otherwise how would all this be possible?

What is the Palestinian to do, when even Ghandi admitted that non-violence wouldn't have worked against Hitler.

Answer the question.

[durutti]

207. You're Right, Of Course

But attacks on the IDF and paramilitaries have my full support.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

98. No, I believe you are confused.

Freepers wholeheartedly support Israeli brutality and domination over the Palestinians- who are reduced uniformly to the anti-human status of "terrorist".

But then you might not think that some can't see through your own fraud, yes?

[jonnyblitz]

102. i think you are projecting.

you of all people accusing somebody of being freeperlike. Advocating the killing of innocent Palestinians is freeperlike..

[DarkPhenyx]

31. Yes and Yes

No further commetn necessary.

[KFC]

33. At this point the Iraqis are not defending themselves

As we are not attacking, just reacting to their violence. They are making matters worse by killing US soldiers and civilians (red cross, UN).

I don't know about rights. Who would confer the right to kill US soldiers and civilians? The UN? Allah? Certainly not us. I would say that anyone who attacks our troops has earned the right to die.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

55. Exactly - we are on the defensive now. Not the Iraqis.

Good question:

"Who would confer the right to kill US soldiers and civilians? The UN? Allah?"

ANSWER? Those bastards probably would if they could.

[prolesunited]

56. We are an occupying force

We are running their government. We have seized control of their oil fields. We recently decided to divide their publicly held companies among our private corporate cronies. Does it surprise you that they are not happy about that?

[Blue_Chill]

136. Not happy about it? No surprise there

And yes the US has to leave as soon as possible. however just picking up and leaving now would do more harm then good. Someone has to step in to help set up a goverment I wish the UN would but sadly we have chimpy calling the shots.

[Terwilliger]

71. KILL WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON!

THEY ATTACKED OUR BRITISH TROOPS! THEY DESERVE TO DIE!!!

[PsychoDad]

99. So the french had no right...

To fight the german occupiers? The Jews in the warsaw ghetto had no right to rise up against the nazis?
The native americans had no right to fight against the expansion of europian whites?

Like the Iraqis they should have all just rolled over?

We are the occupiers. They are the occupied. It is their land. We have no right of imminant domain that you seem to advocate. History shows us that.

[Blue_Chill]

135. Who was the french Dictator the germans removed?

I must have missed that portion of history? Please do tell.

[Scott Lee]

178. The Germans only sought to give the French their freedom!

If we follow your arguments.

And by the way, the guy's name was Vichy. He was the Paul Bremmer of Nazi France.

[PsychoDad]

180. So, It's ok

To attack any country we want without provocation as long as they have a "dictator"?
Lots of countries for you to pick from.

[Kitsune]

34. Killing people ain't okay.

Doesn't matter if you're an Iraqi, and American, or a Martian. Killing people = not cool.

Of course, neither group is living up to that standard very well. *sigh*

Anyway, on to the questions.

1) It was wrong, it continues to be wrong, and it will always be wrong for us to just run into Iraq because pResident Housemaster decides he wants a war.

2) Ideally, it would be for the Iraqi people to repudiate the handpicked government of collaborators, establish their own republic with guarantees of various rights/protections, and tell the US to get the fuck out of their country. I mean, if there were an alternate government and the majority of the population of Iraq supported it, we'd look even worse on the world stage than we already do. Of course, the odds of that happening are about the same as me actually getting a date, so I'm not holding my breath...

3) If America is invaded, do I fight? Well, let me put it this way: if it gets bad enough that the EU/the world in general actually gets ballsy enough to mount a ground invasion of North America (no mean task), I'll have skipped the country long ago. Christ, I'm already considering emigrating to Canada.

That said: If America were invaded and the government was unable to defend the country (which, the way we're shipping out National Guard to Iraq, doesn't seem all that unlikely), I would individually take up arms if necessary, and at least try to hook up with some sort of resistance movement. Of course, once the invading army was expelled, I'd be ready to advocate that my region secede and form Cascadia, if the Federal government was that weak. XD

If you're the invader, you simply can't win a war waged against guerilla tactics, short of systematic genocide.

[laura888]

41. we just need to get out and hope no one invades us!

1) Yes, we invaded a sovereign nation and the action was NOT justified.
2) the Iraqi people are within their rights to fight. we would do the same if we were invaded.
3) I would fight if foreign troops landed. Unless they were Denmark.

[aldian159]

73. Something is rotten

in the state of Denmark.

Hamlet, Act I, Scene iv.

Everyone should read Hamlet.

Good posts everyone.

[phrenzy]

49. Oh, Please...

Oh please - spare us the my "friend, brother, father, daughter" is in Iraq crap. Nobody here wants American troops to die. Each of those people are irreplaceable and nobody would 'hope' that they are killed.

The real question is - do you have an US or THEM attitude? You either for "the troops" or "'ginst the troops" - It's not that simple.

Also, the underlying (and unspoken) rule of most people with personal connections to the military is that an Iraqi life is NOT worth as much as the life of an American soldier. Face it - this is a fact. Nobody wants to admit it, but there it is.

So, for example, if an American soldier was ordered to drop a 3000 lb bomb on an iraqi apartment building because there might be terrorists in it - knowing full well the likelihood that there will be innocent life in that building - Then YES I root for the Iraqis to take him down by whatever means necessary before he can drop the bomb.

Is that wrong?

Was the American revolution wrong?

[laura888]

52. thank you - well put! n/t

n/t

[kalian]

57. Ummm...yes and yes....

:eyes:

Like...duh!

[bowens43]

60. Yes, yes,yes

The US troops are invaders and the Iraqis have the right to defend their country by any means at their disposal. No one here wants to see american service men and women killed. But the fact is that the US soldiers are invaders and this is a war. Those being attacked have a right to fight back.

[PapaClay]

62. What hurts the most

is the Deja Vu. Once in any lifetime is too much.

[jiacinto]

78. I can't believe that you are defending a group that supports

killing Americans.

[KG]

79. it disgusts and sickens you, too

doesn't it?

[Forkboy]

83. I just bet

that nobody saw THAT coming.

[DrWeird]

86. I can't believe you support killing innocent people.

HOW DARE YOU!

[Blue_Chill]

129. You didn't have a problem when Saddam was doing it.

SO HOW DARE YOU COMPLAIN NOW?

What would you have done to STOP THE KILLING. Inspectors didn't do that. Sanctions kill many more. The UN did nothing. So seriously if that is the stance you are going to take then offer up how YOU would have STOPPED Saddam Hussien for good.

I opposed this war only because I don't trust Bush to do it right. And I'm seeing that my doubts were correct. However the stance you are taking makes no sense at all. You flare up in righteous indignation over the deaths of innocent Iraqis but were preapred to stand by and allow them to happen prior to the war.

[JanMichael]

150. You're in rare form today.

Mixing and matching RW talking points all over the board.

Nice work!

[Blue_Chill]

152. That tactic is old and doesn't apply to centrists

I'm not interested in what is a left wing or right wing point to make. I don't care abot what any of you think of my political stances.

I do know that I care about people. I care enough to be angered when someone attempts to justify the killing of troops many of whom really think this mission is about liberation. I care enough to be angered by those that flare up in anger over something they had no problem with yesterday.

Iraq should have be liberated long ago, in fact the US should never have helped subjugate it in the first place. I opposed this war beause I did not trust those in charge to carry it out, and I was right. Look at afghanistan and it's farce of a goverment for proof. however I will not pretend that the removing dicatators is a evil act simpley because that is the current attitude of left wing.

I am a democrat because I care about this country and I care about people, not because I oppose the right wing. I base my stances on what I think is just, unlike many here who wait to see what the right wing does and then takes the opposing stance whatever it may be. I never thought I'd live to see the day liberals defended Saddam but I've already seen that a few times on this board. I've even seen calls to put him back in power. It is truely a sad day when the left is DEFINED by the right.

[JanMichael]

155. Then why use up so many words explaining you political stances?

"I don't care abot what any of you think of my political stances."

Good for you dawg.

"I do know that I care about people."

I would suggest that a great number of other people here do as well.

"I care enough to be angered when someone attempts to justify the killing of troops many of whom really think this mission is about liberation."

You're focusing, IMO (Which you've already said doesn't mean anything to you.), on the wrong issue. Our troops are being willfully misused and because of that are being killed. Those doing the killing are a mixed bag for sure but the fact remains that we've invaded (Based on lies) and occupied something that's not ours. So to understand why an Iraqi might hate our troops, which in essense is us, and attempt to do them (The Occupiers) harm is no great mystery.

"I care enough to be angered by those that flare up in anger over something they had no problem with yesterday.'

Context. There are some things which are within our control, there are also those things which we literally cannot change.

Our "Democratically" elected Government is supposed to be of the mutable varieties. Not a monolith that goes on a freakin' crusade for blood and oil.

[Blue_Chill]

158. response

I would suggest that a great number of other people here do as well

Not enough to do anything about it. What would those that "care" here have done about Saddam? Nothing, nadda, not a damn thing.

Why? Because the left is in love with this concept the UN. Too bad not a damn one of them has thought about why the UN actually fails to do anything other then impose life sapping sanctions.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinnypriv]

90. As an Iraqi might say:

I can't believe you are defending a group that kills Iraqis.

FUCK nationalism.

[Blue_Chill]

132. So you think Iraqis all would have liked Saddam to remian in power?

We need to get out of Iraq, but to justify the killing of americans as self defense to disgusting.

BTW - not wishing to justify those that kill your fellow citizens is not Nationalism. It's patriotism and there is nothing wrong with that. By your definition anything short of a anti-US stance is nationalism. Sorry but that's nonsense and you know it.

[tinnypriv]

168. What the fuck are you on about?

Does your post have even a semblance of a connection to mine?

Where did I mention Saddam? Where did I mention an "anti-US stance"?

I see no point in discussion anything if you're going to invent things to respond to.

:eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

106. Blind nationalism is a scary thing.

it makes one a good follower in a dictatorship.

[Blue_Chill]

125. Nationalism? Since when did patriotism become Nationalism?

Not wanting the sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers of your nation killed is patriotism. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is not to say you can't also want to bring them home.

However this laughable argument I see pushed by folks on DU is insane. If one were to buy into it, simpley not wishing death upon your nations children equates to supporting dictatorship.

I'm sorry but no, I won't allow that nonsense to go unchallenged.

[CWebster]

130. And what about the deaths of the people of Iraq?

Does "patriotism" to the US mean only American lives matter?

[Blue_Chill]

133. So then it's us or them and you choose us as having to die?

I choose neither. I want the terrorist who are filing into Iraq to piss off. I want the soldiers to survive and the Iraqi people to be free.

I don't justify murder.

[Scott Lee]

143. It's not so cut and dried

What I want to see is the removal of US troops from Iraq. If that does not happen, you will see more US deaths as the Iraqis excersize their right of defense for their sovereignty.

I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that is the nature of things. Work to change what you can, but don't have a seizure when the world acts along it's own natural laws.

[Blue_Chill]

149. The hell it isn't

What I want to see is the removal of US troops from Iraq.

Don't we all?

If that does not happen, you will see more US deaths as the Iraqis excersize their right of defense for their sovereignty.

in order to defend something one must have it to begin with. Iraqis were little more then Saddams pets, with the notable difference that most people are saddened when their pets die. If anything Iraqis have more ownership of their country now then they did prior to the war.


I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that is the nature of things. Work to change what you can, but don't have a seizure when the world acts along it's own natural laws.

What upsets me is the cold shoulder given to our service men and women by many of the folks here on DU. Their lives are not something I am prepared to write off as simpley "the natural way of things" especially since it seems the attacks happening in Iraq are more likely the work of Saddam loyalists and terrorists and not simpley agry citizens.

[Scott Lee]

179. Come on, take off the mask - you're really Wolfowitz, aren't you :)

in order to defend something one must have it to begin with.

They had their own sovereignty to begin with. Next?

Iraqis were little more then Saddams pets, with the notable difference that most people are saddened when their pets die. If anything Iraqis have more ownership of their country now then they did prior to the war.

Tell that to Harken, Halliburton and all the other war pillage Bush donors who are gobbling up parts of Iraq in NO CONTEST bids.

HINT: "No Contest" means that no Iraqi company can even try to get them.

What upsets me is the cold shoulder given to our service men and women by many of the folks here on DU.

"Our"? I thought you were Chilean.

Since when is it the "cold shoulder" to demand that our criminal government bring the troops home?

Their lives are not something I am prepared to write off as simpley "the natural way of things"

"Their lives"? See you're making my point. Why are "their lives" anymore important than the Iraqi lives being lost at a greater rate in this mess the US has created?

especially since it seems the attacks happening in Iraq are more likely the work of Saddam loyalists and terrorists and not simpley agry citizens.

Really now! So there are no angry citizens that might be Saddam loyalists? Are you saying that an "angry citizen" would not think of fighting for his country's freedom (yes that's what it means)?

You know, Mr. "Chilean", your passive/aggressive trip here is really getting tedious. Every post you throw a bone to the anti-war movement but then go on to extoll the virtues of a military aggressor who robs soveriegnty outside of several laws both national and internationl.

Please be honest and come out in favor of the occupation and save yourself some more anger and humiliation. I would far rather debate an honest war supporter than try to slog through an honest conversation in the sham way you are participating.

[CWebster]

148. Neither does anyone else...except for maybe those

who supported Bush in his mission....and ignored the Pope, huh, B_C?

[Blue_Chill]

151. Nice assumption

But I did not support this war because I do not trust those in charge to handle it correctly. I don't trust them to care about the people more then the resources they can steal.

I believe this is the same reason the pope opposed it. Freeing people is the popes major claim to fame, after all he was vital in the fight against communism. However it doesn't take a big hat or a pope-mobile to see that oil whores are not the right people for the job of liberating oil rich nations.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

107. I wonder what you'd be saying if the roles were reversed...

Consider the following:

1) You are living in a country that has been bombed back to the Stone Age and you have lost family members in those attacks.

2) Those same people, who you believe are worshipping the wrong religion, then invaded and occupied your country while killing still more of your countrymen and leaving your family without power, water, and food.

Question: What would you do? Seriously...what would you do?

[prolesunited]

114. That was the point

of the bonus question, to get people to consider if the situation was reversed. :-)

[Blue_Chill]

127. You forgot much in your "example"

Consider the following:

1) You are living in a country that has been bombed back to the Stone Age and you have lost family members in those attacks.

2) The result of those attacks was the removal of a brutal dictator that did not allow you to have any say what-so-ever in the laws of your own nation

3) Those same people, who you believe are worshipping the wrong religion, then invaded and occupied your country while killing still more of your countrymen and leaving your family without power, water, and food.

4) Power was restored and the process of creating a constitution was begun.

5) For the first time in a long time you were able to fully celebrate your religion and peacefully protest what you thought was wrong.

[DrWeird]

167. The removal of a brutal dictator...

to be replaced by an equally brutal dictator that has also killed thousands of your people and is continuing to do so. The same dictator which also appointed the previous dictator and is appointing an equally corrupt one.

Power was restored, which had been destroyed previously by the same invading force.

I mean Jesus sheepfucking Christ.

Do you really believe that this war is about saving the Iraqi people. Do you really think they want us there and that they'll end up better because of us? Why do you suppose hundreds of Iraqi civilians show up every time a US troop gets his brains blown all over the street to cheer?

[Blue_Chill]

169. No this war wasn't about saving people

But it can be now! We have election coming up and we have to put pressure on the goverment to do the right thing.

However the "it was wrong so pull out now" or worse "put Saddam back in power" would make all the lives lost meaningless.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

200. Yes, indeed. We've killed upwards of 15,000 Iraqis while...

..."liberating" their country from Saddam, and badly mishandled every single step in the process. But the Iraqis can trust us now to do the right thing??

Another newsflash for you...the lives lost in this conflict will NEVER have any meaning because it was manufactured based on a set of lies a mile high. There are no WMDs, and since Desert Storm, Saddam had not been a threat to Iraq's neighboring countries.

So now the fallback reason for the war was to "remove Saddam from power because he was an evil dictator". How many other "evil dictators" around the world has America SUPPORTED for as long as they suited America's purposes?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

199. In what galaxy far, far away do you reside?....

First, you stated:

"2) The result of those attacks was the removal of a brutal dictator that did not allow you to have any say what-so-ever in the laws of your own nation"

And with what did we replace Saddam? The last time I looked, the Bushies immediately installed a "governor" to "administer" Iraq in much the same way as Rome governed the countries it conquered. The "governor" rules with an iron fist backed up by a U.S. military force that shoots first and never asks questions. The Iraqis have absolutely zero say in how they are governed.

You also made the comment that:

"4) Power was restored and the process of creating a constitution was begun."

Really?? When exactly did the power get turned on for even a fraction of the people of Iraq? The same question applies to clean fresh running water...exactly what percentage of Iraq's people have this luxury? You do know that electricity and fresh water were in abundant supply before the Bushies ordered the U. S. military to illegally invade Iraq, don't you?

Creating a constitution?? What does that mean exactly? That the Iraqis are free to propose any law they want as long as it's approved by the American "governor"?

And finally, you decided to go completely off the deep end with the following remark:

"5) For the first time in a long time you were able to fully celebrate your religion and peacefully protest what you thought was wrong.

They weren't able to celebrate their religion before we got there???? What have all of those people been doing in those mosques...playing bingo?? Even Christians and Jews were allowed to celebrate their religions before Iraq was invaded!! And yes, the Iraqis have been allowed to peacefully protest whatever they thought was wrong until American troops shot a few Iraqis to disperse those demonstrations.

[Solly Mack]

84. If the tables were turned

People in America would be doing the exact same things the Iraqis are doing...

We'd be fighting back tooth and nail.

Yes, they have the right...and Yes, we invaded. And it's really that simple...

[MSchreader]

88. And now, I have a question for you all

How many of you have friends/family in Iraq ... who are Iraqis? Any of you? Some of you? How about one of you?

I do. I have many friends now over in Iraq. They went home after the Hussein regime fell, thinking that they were being liberated.

Now, they are learning that U.S.-style "liberation" is more a euphemism than anything else.

"Liberation" = death.

The occupation troops are not only killing civilians indiscriminately, they are also acting as strikebreakers against Iraqi workers and are taking whatever they want from civilians.

Murder. Scabbing. Theft. The "New American foreign policy" for the "New American Century".

Those of you who have family members serving as occupation troops in Iraq, I have a question for you: Do you grieve for my friends? Do you even think of them?

Or, are they just today's "gooks" to you?

Martin

For good info on Iraq: http://www.wpiraq.org/english

[ElsewheresDaughter]

95. yes and yes...and yes and yes

[Fish Eye]

97. Answers:

not justified
work for peace and freedom kill in defense of their land (if it comes to it)
one should never lay down and take it
they are morally justified if they kill coalition forces who occupy their land

bonus: I would support any troops who came to liberate us as long as they did not turn into occupiers. I support justice not nations.

[KG]

112. well said - 'I support justice not nations.'

you got a copyright on that? i think i'll make that my new sig. :)

[prolesunited]

115. What about

some of these?

The love of one's country is a splendid thing.  But why should love stop at the border?  — Pablo Casals

Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance.  It is also owed to justice and to humanity.  Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. 
— James Bryce

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. 
— George Bernard Shaw

It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world.  The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens. 
— Baha'u'llah

Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him? 
— Blaise Pascal, quoted by Tolstoy in Bethink Yourselves

It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind. 
— Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary

Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind.  We love the land of our nativity, only as we love all other lands.  The interests, rights, and liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us than are those of the whole human race.  Hence we can allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or injury. 
— William Lloyd Garrison, Declaration of Sentiments, Boston Peace Conference, 1838

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world. 
— Eugene V. Debs

More here:
http://www.quotegarden.com/patriotism.html

[Fish Eye]

181. great quotes

the Debs quote is one of my favorites

by the way excellent and bold question to post....

[Kamika]

116. Iraquis have a right to defend back EVEN if the war was justified

The topic pretty much summons up my feelings.

Every country has a right to defend themselves by any means to an invading force and / or occupiers.

I dont support killing our troops at all. Infact I oppose any killing whatsoever by anyone.

But I do strongly support the right to defend your country by any means.

And when i say ANY means i mean ANY means.

If the US was invaded and occupied by some country I would happily kill anyone from that country, I wouldn't limit myself to the soldiers on our soil. I'd take any chance I could to kill anyone even if it was a civilian in the enemy country. There are no innocent ppl from the invading/occupying country.

[PsychoDad]

185. Very well said.

"I dont support killing our troops at all. Infact I oppose any killing whatsoever by anyone.
But I do strongly support the right to defend your country by any means.
And when i say ANY means i mean ANY means."

Well said, I agree.
It's not like the US has given the Iraqis many options. I do think the sentiment that we are not wanted there, and that they wish self determination, without the influence of our government or corporations, has been quite clearly stated.
But we won't leave. And we support or presence with Tanks, Troops, Helicopter Gunships, etc.

What choices do the "liberated" now have?

[Blue_Chill]

117. Who did Iraq belong to prior to the US getting there?

Did it belong to the "people" who some think should "defend themselves". No it did not. In fact the people have much more say and are able to voice their concerns today then they did under Saddam.

Also are the people killing americans really angry citizens? No, there is ample evidence that their are foreign born Arabs coming to Iraq to conduct attacks on the US. This makes it fairly obvious that organized terrorists are involved.

What going on in Iraq is not self defense.

[Kamika]

118. what evidence is this

That ample evidence

[Blue_Chill]

124. Passports showing nation of origin

Perhaps you require an ultilities bill as proof of residency like the public library? I'm sorry but I don't think those will be given.

[Kamika]

126. ok let me get this straight

So what (I think) youre sayin is that all the persons that we caught and/or shot in Iraq(that wasnt civilians) carried foreign passports?


Do you have anything to back that up?

[Blue_Chill]

128. Many of them did

Perhaps you need to read some more mainstream media that doesn't leave out anything and everything that goes against what it wants to prove.

[Kamika]

131. i read all kinds of media, and YOU didnt answer my question

I can most likely guarantee you i get more and more balanced media then you do.

I visit and read everyday

ap.org
Reuters.com
cnn.com
foxnews.com
haaretzdaily.com
english.aljazeera.net
news.bbc.co.uk


Now..

Can you direct me to anything that proves your statement?

"(there)is ample evidence that their are foreign born Arabs coming to Iraq to conduct attacks on the US."

Btw in the future i recommend you leave out the hidden insults when you debate with someone

[RichM]

119. Gee, this argument sounds just like the White House.

What a surprise.

[Blue_Chill]

122. If you want to make an accusation then make it

Don't pussyfoot around.

[JanMichael]

153. He's saying that you sound like Coulter regarding the Invasion.

Clear enough?

I have no idea why you've taken this stance. The "War" was built on lies, plain and simple. Did we "mind" when Saddam's Baath Party Regime was behaving in a brutal way? Of course. But, to be frank, the US is NOT in any position to play judge, jury and executioner all of the World; To think we can is insane (from ever angle) and Imperialistic regardless of the warm fuzzy arguments about "Liberation" and "Freedom".

I guess with your reasoning in this thread we should unilaterally invade, then occupy, anyplace that "bad" things happen...NK would be #1 by that measure perhaps followed by Russia due to Chechnia. After that there are plenty more.

Good luck.

[Blue_Chill]

156. that would be true if I supported this war

Which I didn't. I don't support unilateralism, but then again I would have wanted the UN to do something but corruption sunk that ship as well.

I do however support the world refusing to ALLOW A SINGLE DICTATOR to exist. It is interesting contrast to see how american liberals are so quick to demand so much equality yet lately have become just as quick to excuse dictators.

Bush is the wrong man for the job. In fact the US is the wrong nation for the job of removing Saddam. But sadly no one gives a damn anymore. And sadder still is that we live in a world where the only motivation that was strong enough for someone to finally kick saddam out was greed.

[prolesunited]

157. Just who

is living in a dream world here?

"I do however support the world refusing to ALLOW A SINGLE DICTATOR"

Just how do you think we can accomplish that?
Also, you asserted that the UN was "corrupt." What did you mean by that statement?

[Blue_Chill]

160. Perhaps I am

I remember when the left opposed oppression. Now it seems we are more concerned with not pissing off the worthless "international community".

As for the UN being corrupt just look at the Iraqi war. France and Germany opposed it because they had business contracts with Saddam, the US supported war so that it could get in on the theft. Not a care in the world from either side on the people starving to death via sanctions.

[prolesunited]

162. First, tell me where I said I didn't oppose oppression

and then maybe you would care to expound a bit on that "worthless international community." Aren't those the same people you want the U.S. to try to save?

What is so wrong in trying to operate without arrogance within the context of a global community? How can you logically argue that we need to save the world on one hand and then put forth such an isolationist precept on the other?

[Blue_Chill]

171. Tell me what you would do to end it?

Work with nations more worried about their contracts with dictators then doing whats right like France and Germany?

Perhaps you would debate with Iran about human right in africa?

The point is NO ONE in the UN is willing to do anything and it is not arrogant to say that something must be done. I don't give a shit about perceptions and feelings I care about results. I'm getting sick of the bullshit, sick of the lack of action, sick that the only time anyone steps up to remove a dictators their motivation was money.

[prolesunited]

175. Well then

Go enlist. Go get ya some action!

[prolesunited]

177. Speaking of France and Germany

We're obviously there for all of the RIGHT reasons. Just thought this might interest you, although it doesn't do much for the argument you've put forth here

Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations

WASHINGTON (AP) - Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.

The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.

The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers.

The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20031030%2F113288134.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20031029PMM109

Center for Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org

[Misinformed01]

164. Reading the Iraq threads in GD for the past two days

has been like watching two mules fight over a turnip.

BlueChill, if you are concerned about human rights violations, then I suggest you join either Amnesty International (I personally am one step from cancelling my membership with them because of a personal gripe...but, hey..) or Human Rights Watch. ( http://www.hrw.org/ )

The Women's International League for Peace is another good one, but I can't remember if you are a female or not. I guess it doesn't matter..men can join too.

Pretending like an invasion was a good thing for the people of Iraq because Saddam was/is a vicious son of a bitch is crap. I read what you wrote, so don't waste your time with telling me, "but I WROTE I didn't support it."

[Blue_Chill]

170. I never said the invasion was a good thing

But removing Saddam isn't a bad thing either. If you want to argue against the invasion then show me how things are worse now, and will be worse in the future had the invasion never occured.

I happen to think if we can vote in a dem in 04 Iraq might turn out to be a damn good thing. Someone that actually cares instead of just craves more oil for his buddies.

[Misinformed01]

174. Didja even read my post?

BTW, this is "Thtwudbeme," or just Stephanie to most of the older DUers. Different name, same bitchy attitude.

I told you not to bother to write "But I didn't support it!" I read your previous posts...got it.

I suggested that you get involved with human rights organizations since you are concerned about human suffering. I am not going to waste my time looking up incidents illustrating suffering caused by war for your edification; you are on the internet..do it yourself.

[jonnyblitz]

121. umm...ok.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Blue_Chill]

123. So then you see no difference

Between a nation removing a dictator that did not allow public protest, religious practice, free elections, free speech, etc.. as being no different froma nation removing a elected body and oppressing people for no reason other then their own interests?

From what I see coming out of Iraq yes things are difficult but they are on the road to self representation. Could you have said that prior to the invasion? No.

There is no reason to attack US troops who at the moment are only trying to keep the peace and find remaining elements of a oppressive illegal goverment. No different then the hunt for Nazi officers post WWII.

The US needs to get the hell out of there, of that there is no doubt. However to stretch that to mean it is justifiable to kill soldiers because it's in self defense is a weak argument.

[jonnyblitz]

165. what i thought was crazy that you said was

the only people who dont want our troops there are the "imported" terrorists and that the locals want us there. I am sure there are many locals that do want us there and many that don't. I haven't polled them like you apparently have.

Although I am not for the killing of our troops since 1.) i used to be one, and 2.) I know people over there or who are about to be over there, I can understand from an Iraqi point of view why they would be wanting to kill the troops. And as for ANSWERS support of this, somebody needs to tell Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out since they signed on to this last protest and I highly doubt they would have participated in a program that advocated the killing of their loved ones.

So do you think we should invade all countries with evil dictators, blow the crap out of them, occupy them, and the proceed to pillage them of their resources for our corporate profit? What a noble endeavor.

[KG]

184. you are under the dellusion that bushco intends to withdraw the troops

the iraqis have no such fantasies and they intend to kick the US out, and any other foreigners and that includes the UN, red cross, bechtel, halliburton, etc.

the result of your noble mass murder to unseat a 'dictator' was to create a power vacuum that islamic fundies are rushing in to fill. and their motto is going to be 'iraq for iraqi's' and when they get done chasing the US and other foreigners out of the iraq then the factions will fight each other to determine their form of gov't.

this shorted sight invasion has open up a can of worms that won't be settled utill much more blood is spilled, and iraq suffers further destruction.

why some believe ME countries need or even want american style 'democracy' is beyond me.

[Scott Lee]

144. you look for democracy from the USA, which never was one

You are also neglecting a simple fact - if Iraqis en masse hated Hussein and wanted him out of power, they would have done so. It's called revolution, and its another natural act among societies who find their governors distasteful.

Oh and please don't give me this "they were slaves to Saddam" nonsense that we can get in droves over at the Freeper sites. The Iraqis chose - and chose to tolerate/support this dictator. It's happened many many times before around the world.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Chill]

172. That's an insult.

Your post is insulting to anyone who has ever been under the thumb of a dictator. You promote inaction by stating that people can always just throw them out, ignoring the fact that dictators take steps to avoid exactly that.

[Scott Lee]

182. Every post you pretend to be against the war is an insult

Your post is insulting to anyone who has ever been under the thumb of a dictator. You promote inaction by stating that people can always just throw them out, ignoring the fact that dictators take steps to avoid exactly that.

Every and any people have the means to throw out a dictator. The only question is, has said dictator pushed their populace beyond the threshold of tolerance. If they haven't and the people do not act to remove him, then tough. That's the choice they make.

There is, quite frankly, no "steps" that any dictator can take to work against the true will of the people. When the people are aroused to take action, they can and they WILL.

Phillipine Dictator and US puppet Ferdinand Marcos imposed martial law for years on his country. Martial law is just about as repressive as one can get. How is it that the Phillipine people finally chased him out of the Phillipines?

Bulgarian Communist dictator Ciaocescue (sp?) also had an intimidating military and gigantic superpower financier (USSR). How is it his poor and disempowered people arrested and executed his ass?

A ragtag bunch of British colonists rose up and took on England, arguably the most powerful military in world back in 1776. How is it they prevailed against such overwhelming odds, under the savage boot of the Crown?

[PsychoDad]

183. Let's clean our house first.

Before we dictate what an acceptable government is to the rest of the world.

Let me ask, A hypothetical question here.

Suppose in 2004.. There is no election or Bush wins by a land slide. By 2005 the bush regeme continues it's wars of expansion, threating to pull other countries into the conflict.
The EU and Canada, after exhausting diplomatic avenues decide to "intervene" with military force. Would you fight back during the "intervention"? How about the Occupation? Would you follow the orders of the unelected governing councel, placed in power by the occupiers?

Or would you welcome the new government placed in power by our "liberators"?

How does everyone feel about this?

[Scott Lee]

186. That's an excellent question

My answer is, I would certainly fight an invasion of my country - even though I would definitely understand why that one was launched.

So my agenda would be: Force out invader first, then, since the military resistance is in play, turn it on the fascists who stole my government that started this mess. That very scenario has played out many times through history. It's nothing new.

Follow up question. Have you noticed that the deeper we get into this troublesome question of the legitimacy of armed Iraqi opposition, the more some of the self professed "anti-war" contigent outs itself as the exact opposite?

[Nederland]

120. Sure they do

...but lately most of their targets have been Iraqis, not Americans.

[QuestioningStudent]

166. No; Yes.

I would venture the argument that any country that is tyrannical, despotic, and actively works against the interests of its citizens, especially if it is not of a republican (y'know, combination of representative democracy and a constitution, not the Republican party) form of governmen, is not a legitimate, soveriegn government. I would further argue that the application of military force by a government which is legitimate against one that is not, for the purpose of liberating the oppressed people of the illegitimate government, is a just application of force. Furthermore, simply because a government possesses support among certain segments of its populace does not confer legitimacy upon that government; see Nazi Germany and the USSR for examples of what I mean. Each government was supported by various groups within the state, yet neither one was a morally/philisophically legitimate government. Were each of those governments recognized by other nations? Yes. Were each possessed of the capacity to wield such military force that they were a power unto themselves, and could by termed 'soveriegn,' inasmuch as they were mighty? Yes. Would any military action against them have been illegitimate? No; I contend it would have been (and was) quite justified. Likewise I would say that the American invasion of Iraq, provided it does not reduce Iraq into a colony of America, was justified. I cannot accept that strongly encouraging a republican form of government equates automatically to the creation of a colony, and I do not accept at this point that the fact of a _temporary_ occupying government, established to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure and encourage the foundation of a free nation, is, by default, an unncessary evil.

That said, I support the rights of an Iraqi to self defense as I support the rights of everyone to self defense: One should be able to defend oneself against any illegitimate application of force against oneself, and if Iraqis (sp?) was subjected to an illegitimate threat against themselves, they ought to defend themselves through such means as are necessary. I will not say, however, that a right to defend oneself means a right to simply attack American troops; the presence of American soldiers in Iraq right now seems to be a necessity for the creation of any type of stable government that is not tyrannical and oppressive--not to say that there won't be some unfortunate and tragic abuses by any temporary military government, but it seems the lesser of all evils.

Bonus: So long as the American nation remains an essentially free one, any American citizen ought defend her against foreign attack. Should such service be compelled? No. It simply seems a moral duty to defend one's country, if it is an essentially free and just one, from foreign invasion.

[Mass_Liberal]

191. im sorry but if

a foreign power invaded the U.S to remove our horrible president, and said it was for our own good, don't resist we wouldn't take that crap for a second. Look at it objectively: it is easy for an non-saddam loyalist to say, Iraq has sovereignty over its borders and lands, and as an Iraqi, I have the right to defend my country.

Do I think they have the right to suicide bomb our troops and their civilians? Hell NO! But they did have something of a right to defend themselves in the first place.


Peace :kick:

[frank frankly]

193. good question, and easy to answer

1. We invaded them. It was a invasion. That goes against our Constitution and the most basic rules of all civilization.

2. Yes, they have the right to defend themselves. That is why I opposed this monstrosity and continue to say we must leave NOW.

Bonus: Hey, I've seen Red Dawn. I know I would resist. Hell, I'm resisting right now!

[QuestioningStudent]

194. Where, precisely, does it say that?

I have a gripe about your first point, namely your contention that the Constitution has a provision prohibitting the action in Iraq; I find in the Constitution no such provision. Could you direct me to it?

[Geppy]

195. Iraq and attacking the troops

Well, I'm new here, so forgive me, and am a new Democrat (I vote for first time in 2004, yay :)) but I'm disapointed in what I'm reading here.

There doesn't seem to be the slightest bit of acknowledgement of the nature of the Hussein regime or the people who are attacking the troops. You know he was genocidal, despotic, and ruthless, right? He was about as right wing as it gets - a real fascist. Every one here wants to see Iraq return to that? Do you know the "Iraqi people" want to return to that so much that you presume to speak for them? I'm pretty sure the people that are killing Americans don't want to give Iraq over to the people - but want to take it back for themselves and install a horrible government without any say for the people.

Despite whatever motive you prescribe to Bush (and he has plenty of bad ones) the Americans want to install a Constitution and a vote for the people and want to spend money in the country. Whatever you think about that it is certainly better than going back to Hussein.

You are also comparing it the American Revolution but wasn't King George the tyrant and the Americans fighting for Democracy in that case? I think in this case the people fighting to get the Americans out aren't fighting for Democracy they want to bring tyranny back to Iraq - that's a big difference.

What do you think?

[frank frankly]

198. I disagree fundamentally, but thank you for your response

ON EDIT: I know a young man who died over there. I don't want a single soldier to die. I mourn them all.

First, I support our troops in every way. I did everything I could think of to oppose and stop this war because it was wrong and would lead to this mess that has killed and permentally maimed so many soldiers. I want them out NOW and the UN in now.

We created Hussein in the 80's. We made him what he was. Please look it up. It is a fact, fact, fact. Rummy himself did much of the chemical/biological deals that gave them their former arsenal.

We have bombed and looted Iraq. We have not moved towards a Constitution. In fact, it took recent moves by the UN to force the US to set a deadline (January 2004) for the CPA to begin drafting a constitution. Iraq is now part of an American Empire.

Also, it was billed as a war of liberation, but now is called an occupation. Given the choice between a local fascist and imperial fascist, most people would choose the home town guy. I know Hussein was a terrible person and without redeeming characteristics, but many leaders worldwide would qualify for that distinction. Their countries just don't have the type of oil we need.

I disagree that the Iraqis are better off without Hussein, because we have not made things better, just different and worse. I disagree that the attacks are against freedom, since we have no intention of creating freedom for them.

We went in for oil. We went in for war profiteering. Every threat that BushCo stated was wrong then and proven wrong now.

Please don't misconstrue any of this as lack of support for our troops. It is quite the opposite. They will never be flypaper to me!

[frank frankly]

197. while not a constitutional scholar, I assume

that our current "pre-emptive" war doctrine goes against our rules of engagement, or that we should only go to war when attacked. sorry if that doesn't answer your querry!

[prolesunited]

196. Me, too!

In my own, non-violent sort of way. :thumbsup:

[Plaid Adder]

203. Nobody has a 'right' to kill anyone.

You may say that's an extreme position, but that's where I am right now. Taking human life isn't 'right.' It may become necessary, expedient, understandable, or accepted, but it is never, ever going to be 'right.'

I made this argument way back when about the death penalty and I'm stickin' to it:

http://www.plaidder.com/deathpen.htm

Now. This means that the Iraqis do not have the 'right' to kill Americans. IT ALSO MEANS THAT AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL IRAQIS.

And yet, Americans are killing Iraqis every day in Iraq. And if you invade a country, destroy its government, and then fail every day to live up to the responsibilities that you have so violently assumed, then you are going to have to expect some resistance from the people on the ground.

Do I support the killing of US troops in Iraq? Fuck no. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT THE FUCKING WAR. Because I, unlike, apparently, the morons who got us started on this crusade, understood that when you invade a country, people usually fight back.

There is nothing 'right' about what is going on in Iraq right now, on either side. We created a situation that is just going to be pure harm, damage, and infection no matter what you do to it, and that's what's happening now.

In law there is a concept called the 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' If something you do violates procedure, you cannot use anything that follows from it, as it is considered tainted by the original violation. Our invasion is the poisonous tree, and the attacks on American soldiers are its fruit. And that fruit is very bitter for all of us, even and I make bold to say especially those of us who never wanted this fucking war in the first place.

:grr:

The Plaid Adder

[Pi Master]

204. Back to post number 1

For the bonus round, I'll throw this one in there. The U.S. DOES possess WMDs. What if the European Union gave us an ultimatum, to turn in our weapons or they would declare war on us? Would you fight if foreign troops landed on our soil?

I suppose if we gassed some Canadians, you might have a point.

Actually, a more apt (thought not quite as amusing) example would be gassing some Native Americans. Since the Kurds were actually residing in Iraq.

[durutti]

205. Yes and Yes

First, did the U.S. unilaterally invade a sovereign nation or was action justified?

The U.S. unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation. Saddam Hussein's regime was no threat to anyone but Iraqis. And it's difficult to justify "saving" the Iraqis from Hussein when the U.S. turns a blind to and/or support terrible human rights violations the war over. More to the point, we can't trust people who demonstrably care not one iota about human rights to install a better regime.

Second, which is probably related to your perspective on the first, what do you think the appropriate course of action is for the Iraqi people? Should they accept our control and hope for the best? Or, are they within their rights to fight for their sovereignty?

The Iraqi people can and should defend their right to self-determination. If that means attacking occupying forces, so be it.

I'm not clamoring for the deaths of American soldiers. I wish that no one had to die. But as long as American soldiers are serving in Iraq, they're fair game. One more reason to bring them home.

I also think that soldiers have a right to resist an unjustified war. I would applaud the soldier who refuses to obey, or who turns his or her gun on his or her officer.

The U.S. has absolutely no intention of establishing democracy in Iraq. If it is established, it will be kept on a very short leash.

The occupying forces should leave Iraq. The UN should take care of reconstruction and (to some extent) security. The U.S. should be made to pay reparations.

The people should be permitted to form any kind of government they want, whether an Islamist theocracy or a democracy.

In addition, the Kurds should be finally given a state composed of parts of what are now Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.

For the bonus round, I'll throw this one in there. The U.S. DOES possess WMDs. What if the European Union gave us an ultimatum, to turn in our weapons or they would declare war on us? Would you fight if foreign troops landed on our soil?

I believe that the U.S. should disarm. However, I don't feel that any other country (especially any other country that possesses WMDs itself) has a right to force the U.S. to relinquish them.

And yes, if foreign troops landed on our soil, I would fight them -- if not physically, then through propaganda, civil disobedience, etc.

[qr123]

209. Poorly framed questions / Bad analogies

> First, did the U.S. unilaterally invade a sovereign nation?

No. Many allies helped. Also, I disagree that the Iraqi *government* (as opposed to people/nation) should have been considered "sovereign" at that point (see below).

> If you say it was justified, on what grounds?

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The government of Saddam Hussein was a Stalinist dictatorship in the habit of killing its own people 10,000 at a time and burying them in mass graves. As such, it had lost any moral right to rule the Iraqi people or remain in power. (There is language in the U.N. charter to this effect.) In that kind of truly extreme situation, invasion by foreign powers is not exactly required, but is morally and legally permissible, SO LONG AS the purpose is liberation (changing the government) - not conquest or other injury to the people.

> Second, what do you think the appropriate course of action is for the Iraqi people? Should they accept our control and hope for the best? Or, are they within their rights to fight for their sovereignty?

A people is always justified in fighting for its sovereignty. The real question is - does that apply in this situation? At present, it doesn't. The U.N. **and the U.S.** have both repeatedly affirmed that sovereignty lies with the Iraqi people; that the coalition attack should not be about colonization or territorial conquest and was not; and that the coalition's authority in Iraq is strictly temporary while a new, sovereign government is duly constituted (not something that can happen overnight, especially in a place as deeply fractious as Iraq).

> For the bonus round, I'll throw this one in there. The U.S. DOES possess WMDs. What if the European Union gave us an ultimatum, to turn in our weapons or they would declare war on us? Would you fight if foreign troops landed on our soil?

But that's not a valid analogy. To make it valid, you have to add a bunch more conditions. Imagine that the U.S. had established a pattern of *irresponsible use* of its WMDs, by using them on its own people in the 1980s. Imagine that 12 years ago, the U.S. had invaded/attacked Canada (say) for pure territorial conquest, and had been beaten by a U.N. coalition defending Canada. Imagine that, *as a condition of cease-fire*, the U.S. had *legally agreed* to give up WMDs under close U.N. inspections. Imagine that, over a 12-year period, Bush actively tried to maintain skeleton WMD programs and research (that could be brought online quickly when the time was right) and repeatedly, actively lied to and deceived the U.N. inspectors. Imagine that no less than a dozen U.N. resolutions over the 12 years repeatedly condemned Bush, found him in material violation, and promised the severest consequences. Imagine that, meanwhile, Bush continued to murder 10,000 Americans at a time, starve millions more, and bury them in mass graves. Imagine that the European Union wanted to do something, and honestly had no intention of conquering U.S. territory. Imagine that, at the last second, Argentina (say) announced that it was going to veto any effective U.N. action. At that point - with *ALL* of those conditions necessary and in effect - the European Union would indeed be justified in giving us an ultimatum and invading us, and I for one would NOT resist. Cheers!

[prolesunited]

210. Tell Andy

that DU says hi. :hi: