NationStates Jolt Archive

Sometimes it seems to me that some people on this forum sympathize a little too much with the Iraqi insurgents. The US has already begun allowing the peacefull Iraqis to decide their fate through elections and drafting of an Iraqi constitution. Why would anyone support those who, through violence aimed at civilians, seek to kill that democracy before it can be truly born? Why support a coalition of Baathists and violent Islamists against a new democratic movement that will be better able to serve all Iraqi people fairly? Why not call for an end to those who fight against the new nation of Iraq?

I'll speak for myself here:). I don't consider all the 'insurgents' to be part of the same group. I think a lot of people are being labeled insurgents, that don't necessarily merit this pejorative term. Yes, there are fanatics who might prefer an Islamic state, or just want to kill Americans (and fellow Iraqis who don't agree with them), there are terrorists from other countries coming to join in the bloody fray. But there are also Iraqis who do not trust this 'democratic process', or who are sick of being harassed by BOTH sides, or who are tired of being an occupied people. Deciding which group has legitimacy is impossible in terms of gaining any sort of consensus on the idea.

I don't support ANYONE who kills or harms other people, regardless of the belief system fuelling them. I don't support the US troops that are in Iraq, and I don't support those that are using terrorist tactics to get them out. But I DO understand why these groups (and I'm including the US soldiers in this) are doing what they are doing. It's a confusing mixture of aggression and self-defense, and the line between the two is very thin right now. However, when you say that people are supporting the 'insurgents' a 'little too much' I guess I agree. I don't like violence, but I will support those that fight off 'invaders' more than I will support the invaders themselves. And I mean the Iraqis fighting, not the 'foreign' insurgents flocking to Iraq.

I support the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination. The US seems to think it can 'create' self-determination this way. Non-Iraqi fighters think they can also impose self-determination. Both sides, however, have an agenda that doesn't entirely include the Iraqis, and frankly, you are not going to have a united Iraqi front that is going to agree on any sort of action, so division exists from within and without.

I support those Iraqis trying to make peaceful compromise. I understand those that are moved to violence. Most of all, I hate the mess this entire issue has become, and frankly, it will serve the US right if they are there for decades, pouring money and manpower into Iraq until things stabilise a bit. As much as I want the US out of there, it's too late. Insurgents are going to be a part of the risk involved in that commitment, but if the powers that be didn't count on resistance in truth, then they are truly blind to reality.

Why do I get that feeling that when the US and it's allies finally pull out of Iraq that the country have themselves a nice civil war? *not that wars are nice :) *

Fighting the nation with their guns and ammunition

That's something you don't see everyday: Junior Murvin/The Clash being quoted in order to bolster support for the invasion and occupation of foreign sovereign powers.

I think what the US is doing in Iraq is giving them the option of self-determination as long as they choose to live in a US-like democracy. But this type of government is NOT an ideal one, it may suit well the mentality of the peoples of European origin who have some common values or paterns of behaivour, which cause us, Westerners, to take some rules and concepts for granted.

I think the US would never allow Iraqi people to choose, for example, a monarchy, or a dictatorship, even if it was their honest and free choice, because it would mean the US could no longer control Iraq in a conventional way. Even a dictatorship can do good things - it just depends of a person's character.

It really is absurd---if people really want the Americans to leave so badly, they should be cheering them on. The faster Iraq stabilizes, the faster the US leaves.

Gay

It really is absurd---if people really want the Americans to leave so badly, they should be cheering them on. The faster Iraq stabilizes, the faster the US leaves.
Cheering on the Americans is going to help Iraq stabalize faster??

Yes, there are fanatics who might prefer an Islamic state, or just want to kill Americans (and fellow Iraqis who don't agree with them), there are terrorists from other countries coming to join in the bloody fray. But there are also Iraqis who do not trust this 'democratic process', or who are sick of being harassed by BOTH sides, or who are tired of being an occupied people.

Well said.

...Why would anyone support those who, through violence aimed at civilians, seek to kill that democracy before it can be truly born?...
Indeed not all insurgents are the same.
I think the attacks on US soldiers (as bad as they may be for you) are a justifiable resistance against the occupation of ones' country. Many people in the US wouldn't act differently.
Attacks against civilians (which is mainly the work of Zarqaawi) are for political reasons only, and can not be justified in my view.

That's something you don't see everyday: Junior Murvin/The Clash being quoted in order to bolster support for the invasion and occupation of foreign sovereign powers.
Good lyrics though (thanks for pointing that out - would have never guessed!) and I wish I knew that song.

We should leave, with as much oil as we can carry on our backs :P

That's something you don't see everyday: Junior Murvin/The Clash being quoted in order to bolster support for the invasion and occupation of foreign sovereign powers.

From the title, I thought it was a thread about The Clash.