Is it "okay" for the Iraqis to fight American troops?

I seriously don't know. I'm very torn on this issue, so that's why I'm asking, and no, I don't "have an agenda." Just tell me what you think about this.

I'm also aware of the awfully vague nature of "okay" in the question. That's part of the question, though...what is it that matters, here?

If you invade someone, you have to be prepared for this. If somehow, some army made it up the Delaware river and invaded Philadelphia you can bet your ass I'll be out there wasting as many as I can.

How can we exact retribution against them if they're not doing anything "wrong?"

I just said I didn't like our people getting killed. I blame the Chimp for the deaths on both sides.

or i will be forced to use violence against you to remove it myself. that's how i see it.

I would sure as hell be fighting.

But on the flipside... I have friends there, right now.

Chalk this one up to Awww, hell. I don't know... :shrug:

Hang from bridges and drag through the streets behind vehicles, no. Bomb innocents in hotels, no. That, to me, is the difference between terrorists and a real insurgent fight.

But those guys were hired guns, you know. Is the reason that we're angry simply that they dragged their bodies around and ripped them apart?

Is that worse than KILLING our soldiers?

George wanted a war and he's got one. I just can't say another country is wrong for fighting an occupying force. I'm with that Pennsylvania guy. If somebody tries to get in this country through my river on the west coast, we're on it.

Unless of course they're here to haul Bush out of the White House. I'd have to think twice about which side to be on in that case. :P

Where's the outrage over the babies that were ripped to shreds by american bombs? Fuck that. If *I* were an Iraqi, I'd be doing the same goddamned thing. These guys weren't civies, they were paid mercenaries. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. I feel horrible for their families, but its certainly not as though somebody had invaded *their* country and killed *their* loved ones, shut down *their* unions, and locked up *their* friends and family members.

The whole situation is a nightmare that NEVER should have been started, and if frat boy George wanted a fight, he should have taken saddam up on his offer to duel in the very beginning. But Republicans are cowardly little fuckwads who would rather make sure that the working class continue to kill eachother so that the rich can stay rich.

a headlight on a northbound train !
Damn you, now i have to crank up some dead !!!

We oughta bring dueling back into style again. That way, our leaders will be damned sure that an issue is worth fighting over.

If GW* were a REAL Texan,he would have strapped on a sixgun when Saddam made the offer.

Reminds me of Robot Jox (I think was the name?)...wars aren't fought by armies.

Would save a helluva lot of lives and money.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all of that. If they want to fight, fight the military. But burning people to a crisp, dragging them through the streets and hanging them from bridges is disgusting. Not that Americans don't do their own share of disgusting shit right here at home, and I've posted that before as well.

Were private soldiers, not there on the order of the US gov't, but because they are paid 'security' forces, contractors, legitmized mobsters to some degree...ie. soldiers of fortune. I don't have the compassion for them that I have for our working class kids there on a poverty draft.

It wasn't just the mercernaries who were treated badly, our troops were too. Besides, the original question was whether Iraqi's have the right to fight. Sure, they have the right to fight any soldiers or soldiers of fortune. Fight, not drag through the streets and hang from bridges. That is disgusting. What makes me angriest is that the media is portraying these soldiers of fortune as humaniatarian or construction contractors, which they weren't. I'd like to know how many of those guys are over there because those guys ought to be included in numbers of troops/security in Iraq. How many "troops" are really in Iraq and how much is that really costing us. It's a dangerous road we're going down, hiding troops and war costs with these mercernaries and "reconstruction" contracts.

We have all the killing technology stacked on our side. What's left for them but to do an end-around and take the fight to the AMerican people through a visual medium that returns the "shock and aweing" back to the American public?

Bullets or RPGs don't seem get our attention, but desecrating corpses seem to get us thinking....

The Iraqis do have a right to fight against any occupying troops, but none of the the kids that are over there just following orders deserve to die.

is not a viable defense, see the nuremberg trials.

Makes A Nuremberg tribunal difficult to convene.

Not to seem disrespectful to the fighting men and women, but many of them are not the sharpest tools in the shed. If you consider that, the indoctrination they go through, and the web of lies that ChimpCo spun, it isn't hard to believe that these kids might actually think they are doing the right thing.

as a reminder.
many of these soldiers will get a quick education in how our current government operates, and will know better than us just what is going on. just listen to some of them that are coming home.

were about prosecuting the commanders responsible for creating and prosecuting the war. Privates and corporals weren't tried for anything, I don't think.

These Iraqis are organized around?

That is what is so difficult with guerrilla warfare.

Who is the enemy? Is the enemy controlled and by whom?

I voted for the 3rd choice. It is not "ok" because our loved ones die. It is "ok" because Iraq is their country and they don't want us occupying it and that is what we would do if the US were occupied.

I should be screaming "NOT OK" since my husband was there for 10 months, but... I'm just too damn confused!

I have a number of Iraqi students... one of them was in Fallujah until 12/2003. He speaks to his family by satellite phone every week (there are no land-lines working there). Keep in mind, his family is wealthy... they are lucky. They can afford things like generators and the diesel to run them. Here is a rundown of the state of Fallujah since the occupation began:

-No utilites... electricity, water, sewage, etc.
-Food is a difficult proposition at best and expensive when available.
-No jobs.
-No law and order, basically organized anarchy.
-There were several murders/killings by U.S. soliers. Some of these 'accidental' killings included women and children. Some of these stories didn't even make the press for fear of reprisals.
-Oh yeah, reprisals... door to door searches and arrests for little apparent reason. This happened to my student.
-There have also been rapes by American soldiers. Yes, family members of my students. Once again, this goes unreported because of the fear of reprisals.

Nothing can excuse murder, but from what I know the response was proportionate to what they have been receiving in the past months.

The only thing that could drive someone to do what happened in Fallujah is absolute/blind anger and rage.

We need to understand WHY that is so...

Certainly the media isn't going to tell us.

What about other people who basically acted as criminals while in power?

To paraphrase an old AC/DC track, If they wanted blood, they got it... These are *invaders*, they illegally invaded a sovereign nation. Regardless of one's opinion of Saddam, why would anyone expect him not to fight back? Or blame him for doing so?

I think he lost the right to even breathe long ago...

issue, I think. Was killing 10,000+ innocent Iraqi's worth the price for capturing a defanged old tyrant?

...our murderous asshole!

I suppose some of the people fighting against the invading forces (there are more than just US troops, don't forget) are Saddam supporters. I suppose there are others who lost loved ones, and that is their reason for taking up arms.

edit: People always have the right to defend their lives. Iraqi lives continue to be threatened as long as US and allied forces continue to ocucpy that nation. (end edit)

All war is awful, this war/invasion/occupation is neither more nor less so than any other; just hits closer to home. I wish the US and allies would pull out, and allow the UN to try to bring stability and sanity to that ravaged country. That is why the UN was created, and why the US, in a saner time, helped bring about its creation.

Only a small percentage.. the majority of the resistance, especially now, is anti-Saddam.

In previously occupied countries, people who do not give in to uninvited forces in their country have been referred to as resistors, or "the resistence." Iraqis who protest our occupation are called terrorists, or, now, insurgents.

It's horrible, however, knowing that our troops and other Americans in Iraq are in constant danger. I am so sad. This war is terrible.

Article 1(4) of Protocol I (additional to the Geneva Conventions) considers self-determination struggles in the context of international armed conflicts: the principle of self determination itself provides that where forcible action has been taken to suppress the right, force may be used in order achieve self determination.


The legal status of combatants for the right to self-determination was defined by the General Assembly in 1973 according to the following principles: United Nations High Commission on Human Rights Fact Sheet on International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs13.htm
- Such struggles are legitimate and in full accord with the principles of international law.
- Attempts to suppress struggles against colonial and racist regimes are incompatible with the UN Ch. arter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and PeoplesSuch attempts themselves constitute a threat to peace and security.
Now you see the conflict for me is my father is an active duty officer and will be redeployed under bush or kerry I know that if the united states was iraq right now there would be a resistance.It is human nature to fight back when you are oppressed so that is why i believe that if kerry or bush truly cares about the troops they would pull out of iraq

The Iraqi people had no self-determination

If Iraqi's invaded us, and were occupying our Homeland?

Empathy...analogy...flip side.

That shit makes my head hurt.

Just lemme be real mad at the bad guys.

Jeez.

away from the stupidity.

And were unable to overthrow him through political or armed means and the Iraqi's invaded our country and overthrew him then I would welcome them with open arms.

there's more to the story, cuz they aint happy. No songs, no flowers. Lots of blood though, which is red like some flowers

Mostly a lot of sand and date palm trees. I'm not really sure why anyone would ever throw flowers for any reason anyway...

How about if you had someone like Saddam as president, and you another country told you that they would help you overthrow him,but when you made your move, they pulled back and let Saddam wipe you out and then proceeded to impose back- breaking sanctions on you and your fellow citizens, all the while you watch Saddam grow richer by skirting them in an obvious manner?

How would you feel about the "liberators" when 12 years after you've been suffering as a direct result of their policies, they decide to come in and impose their own, kinder, gentler dictatorship on your country after blowing it all to hell and terrorizing you and killing your neighbors?

good point but just needed to add that before the US turned on Saddam we supported, armed and watch him slaughter and terrorize you without raising a peep

We do have someone like Saddam Hussein for president. Except ours is more religious.

But yes, of course an occupied population has a right to fight their invaders.

No killing is justified. It may looked justified, but it isn't.

I don't believe in an afterlife, but if you possess a missile launcher and do not fire it while the other person fires lead into your head or chest, your life was much better. Killing is stupid.

Say whatever, I don't think pacifism is a disease.

Well, gosh! Sure, I suppose people (hypotethetical ones) do have a right to fight against foreign invaders (hypothetical ones).

But golly! That all changes if they're fighting against Americans, doncha see.

When the French killed German soldiers and offed collaborators during WWII, they were called what? That's right! Heroic resistance fighters.

When the US-created and armed Mujahadin fought the filthy Russkies in Afghanistan, they were? You got it again! Heroic fighters for freedom. The moral equivalent of our founding fathers.

It's so easy when these things involve obvious bad guys. Everybody knows that Nazis were bad. Everybody knows that Russkies were bad.

And we would have sneered at any Russian who labeled the Mujahadin as terrorists. "Silly Russkies," we would sneer, "your minds have been clouded by propaganda from Pravda! Wake up and smell the truth."

But ya see, the analytic is different here. Because, even though every single objective index matches, point for point (Invasion? Check. False reasons given for invasion? Check. Civilians dying? Check. An ex-post-facto claim of humanitarian motive? Got that, too.) the other examples, this one is very, very different.

Why is it different? Well, ummmm, because it's Americans dying! Don't you see? That changes the whole dynamic!

You cannot approach these issues by asking first whose ox is being gored. There are earlier principles that apply: If country X invades country Y, do the citizens of country Y have the right to resist through whatever means are available?" Answer: Yes.

That answer does not change when you make X "the USofA" and Y "Iraq."

Before all y'all true patriots mount your tall steeds: I do not experience any glee at the death of anyone, American or Iraqi. As it happens, I just got an email today from an old friend whose husband worked with one of the mercenaries who were killed in Fallujah. I do not celebrate that death.

I think the conduct of the crowd in Fallujah was reprehensible. I also do not see it as more reprehensible than blowing several thousand Iraqis into bloody pieces (and have to take into account that many of those people were doing nothing more threatening to me or anyone else than living in their own houses--they certainly were not being paid a grand a day to perform subcontracted military duties).

You can crow all you want about "two wrongs don't make a right." But that doesn't change the fact that, sometimes, it really is important to ask, "Who started it?"

:toast:

my neighbor's kids. Some of the people on THIS VERY BOARD have kids over there.

It's not nearly as simple as you put it.

If you want a real simple answer, then it's "Killing is NEVER okay." That's as simple as it gets- unfortunately, you'd have to check the "no" box up top with that one, though.

Otherwise I'd be smuggling guns to the Iraqis, frankly.

The Iraqis should gratefully throw flowers to the invading troops, throw down their weapons, give tours of the places where Bush and Co thought the weapons of mass destruction might be, invite the troops into their homes, give them the best of everything.

I expect it of you, too, when someone invades the US.

Not to mention, the wimpy kid picked on by the school bully has no right to tell the teacher to make the violence stop. Mugging victims have to let the muggers take whatever they want. Someone breaks into your home, give them the combination to the safe.

/sarcasm

I have friends who are and have been in Iraq, and I want to see them come home alive, in one piece both physically and mentally. The same applies to all who serve no matter in what unit and in what area. But to say that the Iraqis can't defend their homes is to be a hypocrite of the first water.

It implies that we are cowardly bullies who rely on employers who actually do tell cashiers not to be heroes and give robbers the cash in the till, bullies who rely on the scrawny kid in class to be told over and over again never to fight back or the violence will get worse.

We got spoiled when the mass surrender occurred during the first Gulf War. Now our admin seems to be outraged that the Iraqis aren't throwing down their weapons and kissing our feet.

I realize that seems like I don't "Support our Troops", but I look at it this way:

If it was US who were invaded, and WE were the ones under the boot of an occupying foreign army, I'd be pissed if WE weren't fighting to drive the invaders back.

It is THEIR homeland, after all.

Bring our troops HOME. Send in the UN.

And I don't have much sympathy for Halliburton's hired thugs. They didn't know there was a reason they were making "that FAT cash" over there?

more appropriately answered by people who have been victims of invasion.

I'm sure the Iraqis find it quite okay, also the entire Arab region. I don't know if Americans consider their(Arabs) opinion valid. From what I gather by most posts I read it is only Americans that matter in and about anything. So by American standards it is not okay for anyone ever to attack an American. Americans never consider the opinion or value of any other people on earth so it is really a meaningless question and one I suspect is just trolling for sound bites to be used as an attack against any thinking person. just my $.02 worth.