Is there any percievable legitimacy to the Iraqi 'insurgency' ?

[syzygy]

as in bonafide and defensible moral legitimacy against actual grievances that would justify these
extreme acts of violent.

i am trying to find someone (anyone) among the ones who are engaged in active armed 'resistance'
who may have suffered such a grievous wrong that blowing up 30 iraqi police officers in a single act
of mass murder or holding entire towns under a lawless seige could be judged in any way as legitimate ?

- we have former ba'athists piqued that they have been bumped from their perches of power.
- we have a gangster cleric who arms his own private militia as his tool in a game of power politics.
- we have foreign elements who blow up iraqis to destabilize their new government.

there are ofcourse those who are not happy that a foreign army is walking about their country.
but the overwhelming majority of these people are not violent, they are (or are looking forward to)
working with the new democratic government, are abiding by the laws of the land, and don't care for
the terrorists or former ba'athists scurrying about their country creating mayhem.

so who are these credible fighters apart from the discreditable ones named above and how difficult
are their gripes that they could not have been addressed through negotiation ?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: syzygy
as in bonafide and defensible moral legitimacy against actual grievances that would justify these
extreme acts of violent.

i am trying to find someone (anyone) among the ones who are engaged in active armed 'resistance'
who may have suffered such a grievous wrong that blowing up 30 iraqi police officers in a single act
of mass murder or holding entire towns under a lawless seige could be judged in any way as legitimate ?

- we have former ba'athists piqued that they have been bumped from their perches of power.
- we have a gangster cleric who arms his own private militia as his tool in a game of power politics.
- we have foreign elements who blow up iraqis to destabilize their new government.

there are ofcourse those who are not happy that a foreign army is walking about their country.
but the overwhelming majority of these people are not violent, they are (or are looking forward to)
working with the new democratic government, are abiding by the laws of the land, and don't care for
the terrorists or former ba'athists scurrying about their country creating mayhem.

so who are these credible fighters apart from the discreditable ones named above and how difficult
are their gripes that they could not have been addressed through negotiation ?

The French Resisitence often killed those who were members of the Vichy French Government and Police Force. Among them were Communists and Criminals and many of their acts would be considered terrorism by todays standards yet they were embraced by the Allies and the French citizenry (well those who weren't busy turning each other over to the Nazi's). During peaceful times many of those who were part of the Resistence were usually at odds with each other but found themselves on the same side when faced with an occupying Military Force. Sometimes it's the case of "An enemy of my enemy is my friend". This was also the case in China during WWII when the ChiCom's and the Nationalist Chinese joined together to fight the Japanese invaders.

In truth we are the invading and occupying Foriegn Power and even though many (most) saw Hussien as an evil Dictator we are still the invading forces in their eyes and the longer we are there the more the Iraqi's will grow to resent us.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Well there's a foreign nation imposing it's will on Iraq.

But I suppose that argument needs to be tempered, at least a little; a lot of the insurgents are, themselves, imported.

 

[rextilleon]

Your problem sygyzy is that you are forgetting many variables that seem to be in play here. America promised to rebuild Iraq, and in many of these "hotspots" people have had it with our
unfufilled promises. We created expectations and didn't meet them. Also remember that people like animals are very territorial. The Iraqi people might not like the gangster Sadr and the former Baathist but they also dont like us---we have infringed upon their territory.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well there's a foreign nation imposing it's will on Iraq.

But I suppose that argument needs to be tempered, at least a little; a lot of the insurgents are, themselves, imported.

We imported a few ourselves during the Revolutionary War.

 

[rextilleon]

Actually we didn't import insurgents--thats an oxymoron because a true insurgency occurs from within. Thus the French could hardly be called insurgents during the American Revolution.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well there's a foreign nation imposing it's will on Iraq.

But I suppose that argument needs to be tempered, at least a little; a lot of the insurgents are, themselves, imported.

Links?

From my understanding the insurgents are former Saddam Feddayeen, Baathists.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well there's a foreign nation imposing it's will on Iraq.

But I suppose that argument needs to be tempered, at least a little; a lot of the insurgents are, themselves, imported.

Links?

From my understanding the insurgents are former Saddam Feddayeen, Baathists.

I think there's a significant number of foreigners crossing the border from other Arab countries to join the fight.

Frankly, I don't think it's that important; thus "tempered. at least a little". It doesn't invalidate the argument, it simply qualifies it somewhat.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Al-Sadr and his Religious Leadership position speak for the millions of common poor in the country
that are not being recognized by the governorship that have been empowered by our designation.

They were deliberately left out by the New ! Improved ! Iraqi Government that we set up,
and they outnumber those ruling the country by several thousand to one on the ration of
population to affiliation and representation. Those few thousand who control the money
and assets are excluding the millions that actually have to do the work there.

The leader we installed Ali Alioxenfree - or whatever, WAS a Baathist hitman for Saddam
in the old days, and he is also opresently launching political actions against the Kurds in the
North while taking on the Sunni and Shiites in the South and middle of the country.

Remember what happened to Nelson Mandella in South Africa ? After being held as a
political prisoner for over 20 years, upon being set free from his forced incarceration
he became the President of that country. This may well be the future of these party
leaders that we call 'Terrorists' and 'Insurgents' - they may end up in control of that
country in a re-emergence of an Islamic Theocracy State, simular to Iran.

That is something that we do not think in in the best interest of the United States, but
then again, it is really their country, and we can't really force 'Our' democracy on them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: rextilleon
Actually we didn't import insurgents--thats an oxymoron because a true insurgency occurs from within. Thus the French could hardly be called insurgents during the American Revolution.

My point is that we had foreigners fighting for us, training our troops against an occupation.

It is completely understandable how some people in Iraq might view us as we viewed the British, in fact worse, since the Brits were of our culture.

There are many motivations, many individuals and groups fighting. Legitimacy is irrelevant. The situation exists, and as long as simplistic thinking of them = bad, us = good prevails, we will be completely unable to deal with this situation.

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well there's a foreign nation imposing it's will on Iraq.

But I suppose that argument needs to be tempered, at least a little; a lot of the insurgents are, themselves, imported.

Links?

From my understanding the insurgents are former Saddam Feddayeen, Baathists.

Most of them are from Iran and Syria and thats where they get their weapons and ammo from. Muqtada al sadr is also a puppet of Iran.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well there's a foreign nation imposing it's will on Iraq.

But I suppose that argument needs to be tempered, at least a little; a lot of the insurgents are, themselves, imported.

Links?

From my understanding the insurgents are former Saddam Feddayeen, Baathists.

Most of them are from Iran and Syria and thats where they get their weapons and ammo from. Muqtada al sadr is also a puppet of Iran.

MOST.... of the insurrection is from Iran and Syria now???? Sources?

I guess this means we can invade those monkey countries!

Zephyr

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well there's a foreign nation imposing it's will on Iraq.

But I suppose that argument needs to be tempered, at least a little; a lot of the insurgents are, themselves, imported.

Links?

From my understanding the insurgents are former Saddam Feddayeen, Baathists.

Most of them are from Iran and Syria and thats where they get their weapons and ammo from. Muqtada al sadr is also a puppet of Iran.

MOST.... of the insurrection is from Iran and Syria now???? Sources?

I guess this means we can invade those monkey countries!

Zephyr

Top intelligence officials and defense websites like http://www.stratfor.com say that A LOT of these insurgents are funded by Iran and get their support from it in arms, etc. Iran has huge influence in Iraq due to its shiite majority

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well there's a foreign nation imposing it's will on Iraq.

But I suppose that argument needs to be tempered, at least a little; a lot of the insurgents are, themselves, imported.

Links?

From my understanding the insurgents are former Saddam Feddayeen, Baathists.

Most of them are from Iran and Syria and thats where they get their weapons and ammo from. Muqtada al sadr is also a puppet of Iran.

MOST.... of the insurrection is from Iran and Syria now???? Sources?

I guess this means we can invade those monkey countries!

Zephyr

Top intelligence officials and defense websites like http://www.stratfor.com say that A LOT of these insurgents are funded by Iran and get their support from it in arms, etc. Iran has huge influence in Iraq due to its shiite majority

Considering how correct former intelligence has been about the area you will have to excuse me if i am not convinced.

Wouldn't it be great if the fastest way to ensure safety in Iraq would be to invade Syria and Iran to diminish support for insurgents. I bet Cheney is having wet dreams about this.

 

[rextilleon]

There are no sources--the Bush's are trying to tie this into International Terrorism and the Axis of Evil---Therefore they make these outrageous claims that somehow the insurgency in Iraq is being orchestrated by some shadowy group located in Syria or Iran.----It's utter nonsense. Sadr soldgers are Iraqis--poor Iraqis---whom in our infinite wisdom we forgot about. Why does the Republican party still rationalize this adventure in to Iraq Nam???

 

[Runner20]

Bush is not going to invade Iran or Syria, so stop shivering.

But Iran needs to be slowed down, by putting sanctions and limiting their resources to enhance their advanced nuke program.

 

[Zephyr106]

So all those weapons must be coming from Iran and Syria.... never mind that many insurgents appear to be ex Iraqi military, still toting their issued arms. Never mind that right after Saddam's regime collapsed there was looting of the weapons caches, which has been extensively documented in the media. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and Syria were sending arms into Iraq, but there certainly wasn't a shortage of arms inside Iraq, or insurgency minded people in Iraq.

Zephyr

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
So all those weapons must be coming from Iran and Syria.... never mind that many insurgents appear to be ex Iraqi military, still toting their issued arms. Never mind that right after Saddam's regime collapsed there was looting of the weapons caches, which has been extensively documented in the media. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and Syria were sending arms into Iraq, but there certainly wasn't a shortage of arms inside Iraq, or insurgency minded people in Iraq.

Zephyr

What u dont realize is that terrorism is a money making operation, which requires money to run, like a franchise. So without money, terrorism is non existent.

Who has the money to support these terrorists???? mullahs in Iran and possibly the corrupt prices in Saudia Arabia

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Runner20
Bush is not going to invade Iran or Syria, so stop shivering.

But Iran needs to be slowed down, by putting sanctions and limiting their resources to enhance their advanced nuke program.

Why would i be shivering about that? I am nowhere near either nation and have no relatives anywhere near them, i DO however have relatives in Israel so if i were to be for an invasion of Iran at least i would have a reason.

I thought sanctions were worthless? And who is going to put sanctions on them? The US alone or are you going to ask some irrellevant international organization?

And what is it exactly that made the case for invading Iraq that isn't present with Iran now, i mean, if pursuing nukes isn't "WMD program related activities" then what is? And if they are, as you are saying they are, funding terrorist to a much greater extent than SH ever did, then what is the case against invasion?

It would not surprise me if, if Bushie boi wins of course, the US would invade either or both of these nations after having won the elections.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
So all those weapons must be coming from Iran and Syria.... never mind that many insurgents appear to be ex Iraqi military, still toting their issued arms. Never mind that right after Saddam's regime collapsed there was looting of the weapons caches, which has been extensively documented in the media. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and Syria were sending arms into Iraq, but there certainly wasn't a shortage of arms inside Iraq, or insurgency minded people in Iraq.

Zephyr

What u dont realize is that terrorism is a money making operation, which requires money to run, like a franchise. So without money, terrorism is non existent.

Who has the money to support these terrorists???? mullahs in Iran and possibly the corrupt prices in Saudia Arabia

Well, that is your "theory" but that is all it is.

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Runner20
Bush is not going to invade Iran or Syria, so stop shivering.

But Iran needs to be slowed down, by putting sanctions and limiting their resources to enhance their advanced nuke program.

Why would i be shivering about that? I am nowhere near either nation and have no relatives anywhere near them, i DO however have relatives in Israel so if i were to be for an invasion of Iran at least i would have a reason.

I thought sanctions were worthless? And who is going to put sanctions on them? The US alone or are you going to ask some irrellevant international organization?

And what is it exactly that made the case for invading Iraq that isn't present with Iran now, i mean, if pursuing nukes isn't "WMD program related activities" then what is? And if they are, as you are saying they are, funding terrorist to a much greater extent than SH ever did, then what is the case against invasion?

It would not surprise me if, if Bushie boi wins of course, the US would invade either or both of these nations after having won the elections.

The EU is iran's major trade partner, so they probably should. Sanctions put by the UN is worthless since they are more corrupt than any politician will ever get.

We cant invade Iran due to its great size and large military. We can only take on a few nations at one time

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
So all those weapons must be coming from Iran and Syria.... never mind that many insurgents appear to be ex Iraqi military, still toting their issued arms. Never mind that right after Saddam's regime collapsed there was looting of the weapons caches, which has been extensively documented in the media. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and Syria were sending arms into Iraq, but there certainly wasn't a shortage of arms inside Iraq, or insurgency minded people in Iraq.

Zephyr

What u dont realize is that terrorism is a money making operation, which requires money to run, like a franchise. So without money, terrorism is non existent.

Who has the money to support these terrorists???? mullahs in Iran and possibly the corrupt prices in Saudia Arabia

Well, that is your "theory" but that is all it is.

Terrorism just doesnt happen out of nowhere, like u think it does. It requires lots of money and people who make decisions, 16 year olds dont just decide to be terrorists one day.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
So all those weapons must be coming from Iran and Syria.... never mind that many insurgents appear to be ex Iraqi military, still toting their issued arms. Never mind that right after Saddam's regime collapsed there was looting of the weapons caches, which has been extensively documented in the media. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and Syria were sending arms into Iraq, but there certainly wasn't a shortage of arms inside Iraq, or insurgency minded people in Iraq.

Zephyr

What u dont realize is that terrorism is a money making operation, which requires money to run, like a franchise. So without money, terrorism is non existent.

Who has the money to support these terrorists???? mullahs in Iran and possibly the corrupt prices in Saudia Arabia

Well, that is your "theory" but that is all it is.

Terrorism just doesnt happen out of nowhere, like u think it does. It requires lots of money and people who make decisions, 16 year olds dont just decide to be terrorists one day.

Why did you assume that i think it does, but it is still just your "theory" that Iran and Syria (and now all of a sudden SA is involved too) are funding them.

Until you KNOW, it is just your theory. I know it is the same in Bushie speak but i don't speak that language.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Runner20
Bush is not going to invade Iran or Syria, so stop shivering.

But Iran needs to be slowed down, by putting sanctions and limiting their resources to enhance their advanced nuke program.

Why would i be shivering about that? I am nowhere near either nation and have no relatives anywhere near them, i DO however have relatives in Israel so if i were to be for an invasion of Iran at least i would have a reason.

I thought sanctions were worthless? And who is going to put sanctions on them? The US alone or are you going to ask some irrellevant international organization?

And what is it exactly that made the case for invading Iraq that isn't present with Iran now, i mean, if pursuing nukes isn't "WMD program related activities" then what is? And if they are, as you are saying they are, funding terrorist to a much greater extent than SH ever did, then what is the case against invasion?

It would not surprise me if, if Bushie boi wins of course, the US would invade either or both of these nations after having won the elections.

The EU is iran's major trade partner, so they probably should. Sanctions put by the UN is worthless since they are more corrupt than any politician will ever get.

We cant invade Iran due to its great size and large military. We can only take on a few nations at one time

I thought the EU were what was corrupt with the UN, the largest EU nations were accused of it.

The EU will discuss this among the nations and come to a conclusion, we'll see what comes out of it.

Oh poor you, maybe if you had some allies?

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: syzygy
as in bonafide and defensible moral legitimacy against actual grievances that would justify these
extreme acts of violent.

i am trying to find someone (anyone) among the ones who are engaged in active armed 'resistance'
who may have suffered such a grievous wrong that blowing up 30 iraqi police officers in a single act
of mass murder or holding entire towns under a lawless seige could be judged in any way as legitimate ?

- we have former ba'athists piqued that they have been bumped from their perches of power.
- we have a gangster cleric who arms his own private militia as his tool in a game of power politics.
- we have foreign elements who blow up iraqis to destabilize their new government.

there are ofcourse those who are not happy that a foreign army is walking about their country.
but the overwhelming majority of these people are not violent, they are (or are looking forward to)
working with the new democratic government, are abiding by the laws of the land, and don't care for
the terrorists or former ba'athists scurrying about their country creating mayhem.

so who are these credible fighters apart from the discreditable ones named above and how difficult
are their gripes that they could not have been addressed
through negotiation ?

The US invaded their country, overthrew, imprisoned and murdered their leaders, killed thousands of Iraqis, and threw their country into chaos.

If this happened to your country what would you think and what would you do?