...and the 5,000 are winning

...of Iraqis who are against the occupation. I know how I would feel if a foreign power were to occupy my country... I'd be "insurgent," too...

What if France or Germany came over here to remove * from office and put Gore in his place and left after the job was done?

...of a long-term occupation solely to take our natural resources and kill our people? What if they killed someone in your family? What if one of your children had died during 12 previous years of sanctions?

How would you feel about it then?

You never know because that might happen some day in the future.

It's much better than acting first. I can see how that may seem weird in a world of reactionary decisions.

The first poster was wondering how he would feel if his country were occupied by an invading force. The situation you described...removing a dictator, replacing him with an adequate leader, and then leaving...is entirely different.

I see no difference between removing a dictator via invasion and invasion for similar and different goals.

I think there's a big difference in invading to remove a dictator and removing a dictator for the purposes of assuming that dictators position.

Also, in your original post, you painted a scenario that had Al Gore, a person who had more votes than Bush, assuming power.

In Iraq, the inital move was to place Ahmed Chalabi in charge. Ahmed Chalabi has spent most of his life outside of Iraq and is wanted in Jordan. Now, he's a part of the hand picked government. There's a big difference between him and Gore.

First it was to fight "terrorists" and to find WMD. When those fell through, THEN we went in under the guise of removing a murderous dictator. The US turned a blind eye towards Saddam's actions for 20 yrs, but now we suddenly care? This was all in order to control the Iraqi oil fields and set up forward military bases in the heart of the Muslim world for future wars in the area (Syria, Iran, Jordan). We've replaced Saddam with a mixture of US-picked officials who weren't elected by the Iraqi people (democracy in action, right) and backed them with US military power that shoots anyone who protests. What we've done is not free the Iraqi people, but simply replaced one oppressive regime with another. Hell, even most of the new Iraqi police and army are simply members of the old Iraqi police and army that carried out the very atrocities we invaded to stop!

The earth does it as well as our moon. Why would not the inhabitants do it as well or better? I expect that which is unexpected to be the norm in a predictable orbital world.

The first fantasy being anyone coming here and removing Captain Dipshit. The second fantasy being that Iraq has anything to do with removing an unpopular dictator.

As much as I despise the very existance of 'ol Dippy, I do not want one single soldier from a foreign country sitting at the intersection down the street with a loaded weapon, much less tanks rolling through my streets at night. Hell, I don't even want to see American troops at that intersection. The only way I'd accept help from an outside country is if I'm already fighting the powers that be. Any other way, like what Dippy did in Iraq, is still someone imposing their will on me without so much as consulting me. To put it simply, its a matter of "stay the fuck out of my country until I ask you to come in".

France helped us in the Revolutionary War. They didn't come in guns blazing and run roughshod over the colonies in an effort to "liberate" us from Britain (and get a sizable chunk of our tobacco and cotton).

This is gonna hurt me, but if Iraq was gonna be liberated, it should have been done the way Poppa Dippy suggested. Instead of riling them up to get slaughtered, we should have actually supported the rebels.

Although my trust is waning, I still believe in our system of govt. And I believe the 'Murican people will do the right thing and vote Quasident Bush out of office...

Maybe the real number is all of the Iraqis. The entire country wants us the hell out of there. Can't say I blame them one iota.

The real number is probably the CIA's estimate, and is probably growing at the same rate as the increasing violence. That is, the real number is doubling every month or so, with no end in sight.

in....every time we bomb I'm sure it goes way up in numbers.

. . how the Military came up with 5,000 is beyond me

. . and beyond belief

. . with between 8 - 10,000 CIVILIANS killed as a result of this Invasion

. That leaves alot of upset, grieving relatives

. and don't forget the many MORE thousands that are maimed and wounded -

and I'm sure many of them will take up arms to get even

Yup, some of the "resistance" will be organized groups

But I believe alot of them will be just small family groups that have a weapon or two

Kill MY family ? Maim MY Children ? - Damm straight I'd wanna get even !

The friggen BFEE doesn't even acknowleged basic human behaviour !

EVERYTHING is NOT a Conspiracy !!

(well, 'cept maybe the WH "doctrines")

Just My Humble Canuk Opinion

...are correct most of the time?

Don

. . :dunce: . .

Take care.

Don

. . Just a point of interest for you

. . I lived in CA for 14 months from 79 - 80

. . One of my fist places I stayed, the two room-mates were Vietnam Vets ( both in their early 30's)

. . some of my customers (I fixed cars) were Viet vets, and visited them in the hospitals down there

I see, I think, that the US still treats their vets as a nuisance, rather than honoring them with pride.

I had intended to retire down in CA somewhere, but with the present political climate I would not cross this border for love 'nor money.

Great country, but ur Government sucks

- ( I know - not 'zactly LBN !!)

(sigh)

Has the Bush Administration really done anything that made sense in this war? First, the B. Administrations blows up their country, trashes their economy, and wonder why they're so ticked off. Sure, it's great Saddam's out, but geez.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

My husband just got a job offer in Toronto. We are looking at taking a big salary cut, going through a lot of immigration red tape, selling our house in the desert and probably being a long distance couple for a while. But I think it would be a better life for us in the long run.

Also, anyone forcibly invaded this country, and killed my family and dropped bombs on my town, I would want to kill them too.

. . so that'd be some savings,

. . and there are lots of "remote" places close to Toronto -

We have great fishing, hunting, skiing, watersport places

Yahhh - it's a tough move !! :toast:

Carefull though, our beer up here is 25% stronger on the average

oh - forgot, we don't have one of them Patriot Act thingies -

You might miss that - -

:hippie:

...but no one shoots anybody. Yea. Really sounds like hell on earth up there.

Don

. . that guns are for HUNTING ! !

. . you know, deer, moose, ducks, partridge, etc. - as in FOOD

. . us SILLY CANUCKS eh ? !

_ __ :silly: __ _

Yet I still envy you.

It's possible that it's quite a bit more than that...

I've seen reports of 20-50K.

It was at Al-Jazeera. It was about why Fallujah is such a hotbed of anti-US sentiment. Seems those people don't like losing loved ones anymore than we do.

trouble. our guys are so easy to pick out of a crowd, and their guys blend in. if they were all painted purple, we could easily pick them off, but guerilla warfare is never winnable when you start dealing with large numbers. the numbers are escalating, and all of our sickening "demonstrations of power" are only going to generate more hatred and more insurgents. everything we are doing over now there is making the situation worse.

there is only one way to deal with this situation. one way. we have to change the leadership here at home and introduce a measure of kindness to the equation. we have to send a message everywhere in the world that we, here in the united states of america, know that we have done the wrong thing by allowing our adminstration to lead us into madness, and we'll do whatever it takes to correct our error. the whole idea that we have to show non-stop strength or we'll "lose" and "lose face" is erroneous. it's a false idea perpetuated by the right-wing freaks who are all hypnotized by the administration's "thug" stance. real strength comes from doing the right thing, not being rigid and idiotic.

religious people who believe in a benevolent God do so for good reason... if we created God in our own image, and made him omnipotent and benevolent, then we can certainly re-create this country in that image... we know we have greater power than other nations in many respects, but we must be benevolent in order to match the image of everything we hold in highest regard. even those of us who question the existence of a god or deny it outright should be able to see that the only workable method of stopping violence is by demonstrating kindness and reasonableness, and certainly not by furthering violence. we all know that violence begets violence.

if the number is truly approaching 50,000 (that would be remarkable, really, because that number is within one order as our total troups) then this war (by violence) is completely absolutely and horrifyingly unwinnable.

Didn't the Redcoats outnumber the 'Patriots' by a whole bunch, and still got their asses handed to them ?? D'oh ??


:hippie:

This is a perfect example (although I'm not sure the redcoat armies outnumbered the patriots as much or as frequently as is sometimes assumed). I think there are a LOT of parallels between the two. I'm working on collecting them now.

Françoise

Never, ever, ever call it "resistance".

"Resistance" implies "fighting back". It implies that somebody else was the initial aggressor. Such ideas violate the Bush Party Line.

Always refer to it as "insurgency".

"Insurgency" implies aggression. It implies "starting a fight", rather than just fighting back. This idea is in keeping with the Bush Party Line.

This concludes today's lesson in BushSpeak.

(Tune in tomorow to learn the new uses of the word "coalition").


MDN

Here's something I was just reading...Colonel T.E. Lawrence on guerilla warfare (of which he is acknowledged as one of the modern founders); he speaks of the Arab revolt against the Turks during WWI, but what he says is applicable to the situation the US currently faces.

Here is the thesis: Rebellion must have an unassailable base, something guarded not merely from attack, but from the fear of it: such a base as the Arab revolt had in the Red Sea ports, the desert, or in the minds of men converted to its creed. It must have a sophisticated alien enemy, in the form of a disciplined army of occupation too small to fulfil the doctrine of acreage: too few to adjust number to space, in order to dominate the whole area effectively from fortified posts. It must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Rebellions can be made by 2% active in a striking force, and 98% passively sympathetic. The few active rebels must have the qualities of speed and endurance, ubiquity and independence of arteries of supply. They must have the technical equipment to destroy or paralyze the enemy's organized communications, for irregular war is fairly Willisen's definition of strategy, "the study of communication," in its extreme degree, of attack where the enemy is not. In 50 words: Granted mobility, security (in the form of denying targets to the enemy), time, and doctrine (the idea to convert every subject to friendliness), victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive, and against them perfections of means and spirit struggle quite in vain.