Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Nov 25, 2006.
New York Times
Well it's nice to know that somebody is operating in the black.
How quick we were to brand the military resistance to our occupation as an insurgency. To begin with, an insurgency is a war waged internally against a constituted government. What we really have in Iraq, is a war against an occupying army. Americans thought they were going to Iraq to counter the immediate threat of WMD, aimed at us, and being controlled by the international Islamic Jihad.
Well, it did not turn out that way. Instead, we are fighting a war we cannot win. If the vast number of Iraqi people want us to be there, where in the h##l is their help? This is escalating. It is becoming a Jihad against the infidel invaders. Money is not an issue here. This become a religious war if we do not stop it soon. More troops will do little more than make things worse.
We cannot win this war unless we go for genocide. The day we do that, we will deserve the ultimate fate which will await us.
I'm going to go with "civil war." Especially after the last few days, I don't think it's totally honest to call this conflict anything else. With every passing day Iraq looks a little more like Afghanistan or Somalia.
I think there's no one label that's going to encompass everything that's going on (excepting perhaps chaos). I think there are a lot of different groups fighting other different groups for a variety of different reasons. Is there a civil war going on? Sure. Is there an insurgency? Sure. Are there people fighting against the American invaders? Yup. Are there criminal groups exploiting the chaos for profit? Yup. And so on and so on.
It's a multi-sided civil war, with a lot of groups fighting each other for some combination of territory, revenge, nationalism, power and loot.
Do you think there are any "terrorists." Or groups whose goals really center around killing Americans and don't have much more than that planned out?
I'd be willing to believe that there are such groups.
Although I guess that could also fall under your category of "revenge."
I think that there are some that have just come into Iraq because Americans are there and the soldiers are easy targets there. So yes I think that some just center around killing Americans, but most of the rest of the people there, are trying to get us out of their country, and possiby gain more power doing it.
Terrorism describes a method, not a goal, and as we've discussed here before, the distinction between "terrorism" and "legitimate" forms of warfare are often in the eye of the beholder.
I don't claim to comprehend all of what is happening in Iraq right now (even the U.S. military does not seem to know), but it does look to me like the various ethnic and religious splinters are beginning a downward spiral of desperate opportunism. It seems most reminiscent of Somalia, where all vestiges of central government collapse, to be replaced by thugocracy.
Terrorist couldnt operate in Saddams Iraq but Bush & Cheney have turned Iraq into terrorist heaven. You people who voted for these nuts should examine what they have accomplished in Iraq. They have helped the terrorist movement by invading Iraq while Bin laden got away.. Words cant describe my feelings on these two draft dodging scumbags that have destroyed our reputation in the world and made Iraq what it is today. They should be held accountable.
I don't think we're really disagreeing on anything but semantics. I definitely agree that there is a civil war going on. And I believe that I've been one of the people here who has consistently pointed out that terrorism is a tactic, so no disagreement there.
The original article is very interesting. I remember thinking when this war began that sources of arms and funding were a big question mark for what I assumed would be an unwinable war anyway. I'd been thinking of it largely in the context of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan: that with a enough supplies, any people who refuse to be conquered can eventually drive out an invader. Of course, the big difference is that there is no powerful state that is focused on defeating the powerful state from the other camp when the opportunity arises. Russia was obviously not about to fund the Iraqi insurgency. I assumed that there would be enough small arms in country and enough flow of small-scale bomb-making materials that the insurgency would be pretty easily able to mount some level resistance. That article is really disheartening because it makes understandable the success they've had but also makes clear (once again) just how many fronts we're losing on. We've lost the war for a democratic Iraq. We've lost the war for a united Iraq. We're losing the war on "terrorism," defined as use of force against US military or civilian assets by non-state actors.
Didn't you vote for Georgie boy once? It's ok, we all make mistakes. I didn't even vote in '00 because I didn't like Gore. Little did I know.
Anyone else find it ironic that they're self sustaining while we're going broke?