Who truly loves freedom more?

Who blow the shit out of their own country men as well as American Soldiers. God bless them for showing us the right way to express our love of freedom.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I think it's great what they are doing. Killing their fellow countrymen who disagree with them politically or religiously; I mean that's real conviction. That's the thing with us Americans and particularly us American Liberals; we don't really have the courage of our convictions the way they do.

Bryant

but we are the mainplayers in creating a milieu in which violence seems to be the only alternative

When violence solves a problem it stays solved. How many times have we invaded Vietnam since the end of the vietnam war? Not once.

Besides I understand how those people feel. I'm uncomfortable sharing power with people who think differently than me; and violence may provide a way to get around that.

Yes violence is the answer I think; there is no viable alternative to it.

If I were a Sunni I would not want to share governmental power with a Shi'ite or a Kurd. So naturally the only real solution is to start blowing them up. That's certainly justifiable.

You still have not offered a viable alternative

I take it from your "argument" that you would have opposed the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the resistance against the Nazis on the grounds that viloence was involved.

We are blessed to have patriots like you on DU.

Truely they warm the cockles of my heart.

But you are misunderstanding me; I would support any violence to further one's political ends. I thought I made that clear in my previous posts. Using terrorist tactics against one's own people may be ugly, but it is clearly necessary in Iraq as you point out.

I don't know if violence should be our first resort, but it certainly shouldn't be our last resort. Such pacifist nonsense only encourages our enemies.

I have no more kind words to offer

:)

I love a good smartass, but can you identify a "good guy" in Iraq now?

Who is doing the right thing there?

;)

:rofl: :thumbsup:

...

Insurgents killing Americans and other Iraqis are not fighting for freedom, they're fighting to replace our kind of dominion with their own kind of dominion.

There are doubtless people within Iraq society who want to genuinely forge a free Iraqi society but they are hiding from insurgents, local militia and the US troops.

War has marginalized peace.

and dangerous when used by the dull-witted.

How anyone could say the insurgents love freedom is beyond me. They only want freedom to make Iraq a theocracy and establish a Taliban like government there. Fuck them. They are killing civilians too, just like we are. They are oppressors of women and anyone who doesn't believe as they do.
Oh and fuck Bush and the neocons too for making it all possible.

I disagree. Fuck them for making it *necessary*.

What would you have an Iraqi who wants American occupiers out of their country do?

they are defending their country with their hearth and blood, they same way our democrats leadership should be doing the same thing..
but they are to scare to speak up..to scare for political bull crap to admitted that they were wrong when they voted for the war, now is time to defend our country and said yes I did it and I do regretted, …

and misinformed, people like you only empower Bush...

you will defend you family and your country no matter what...and they can said well you just a democrat you must have and agenda...what kind of shit is that? .... put your self in their shoes...they lost everything...their families are suffering there is tons of children with out their parents....and you telling me this is disgusting? yes it is..what inthe fucking world are we doing in IRAQ???????

because they want to introduce a theocracy, that has NOTHING to do with our role. People are not shooting Iraqi civilians because they want us to leave!!!As was already mentioned the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend!!!

do you have the right to deny them this?

How do you know that all insurgents are fighting for a theocracy?

do you also believe they are all Al Qaida?

I never said they were my friend.

Was it right for the northern states to impose a different political organization?

As a liberal, I believe it can be right to defend minorities from oppression the majority would visit upon them.

to change that system

sadly, even in America, it required incredible violence to make that change.

currently, there is no legitimate political system in Iraq.

The majority of people there wanted it.

My view is that it was right to force that change, because the system enslaved individuals. Admittedly, just a minority. But as a liberal, I look at freedom at the level of the individual.

rendering democracy meaningless.

You can divide any political entity in such a way as to make almost any position the majority opinion. (See also: DeLay, Tom; gerrymandering)

The majority of America opposed slavery. The issue really came down to the right of states to secede.

there is support for MINORITY RIGHTS, you may want to take a look at the federalist papers and the whole tyranny of the majority thing. That is what separates liberals from tyrants...

I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me.

I'm a liberal, not a libertarian anarchist. I do not believe that it is everywhere and always legitimate to oppose a legal system simply because it constrains autonomy in some fashion, say, collecting sales tax on groceries.

But I do hold that there is a sphere of individual freedom -- dare I say a penumbra? -- that must be supported by any legitimate government or political faction. More, the systematic violation of that is one of the few reasons that I view as justifying violence against the group or polity that does so. More, I rarely see any reason to support political factions that lack this core of liberalism. That is why I have little sympathy for those who view the insurgents in Iraq freedom fighters.

In the Civil war, the arguable right of secession was a surface issue of a much deeper rift about the power of states vis-a-vis the freedom of individuals. The proof of that is that the reconstruction amendments did not ban secession. It still is unclear when a state may secede from the union. What the reconstruction amendments did instead was ban slavery, impose guarantees of equality and liberty for individuals against the states, and guarantee voting rights. These are all good, liberal values. The issue of secession not so much so.

it was rejected by the overwhelmingly superior ability of the northern states to wage a war of attrition and by the weight of history.

That was the point of The Civil War.

and an Islamic theocracy, the insurgents are fighting for an Islamic theocracy.

Yes the organized insurgent forces are fighting for theocracy

Many are foreign fighters associated or assisted by Al-Qaeda

If their not your friend, you certainly have nonetheless a unhealthy admiration for them.

I'd be interested in seeing such documentation.

Admiration? Can you point to a specific example of me "admiring" them?

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005
Have fun.
You're being an apologist for them, call that being friendly admiring them or whatever, its still foolish and ignorant.

Note: I edited the link, it should work now.

or is this justified too?

than I am for the Congressional repukes

I put them on a list in a poll.

You assumed an agenda incorrectly and have made all kinds of pompous assertions about freedom and who the insurgents are and what they are doing. I'd just like to see some of them backed up.

Your citation does not back up the claim that all insurgents want to establish an Islamic theocracy. The Sunnis clearly do not want that. It talks about their rationale for killing civilians, repeatedly states that "the ultimate end (is) driving foreign occupiers from Iraq states."

Personally, I believe that the insurgents love freedom at least as much as the Congressional repukes and more than the bushgang.

There are things in our own country which are not intended to be subjected to simple majority rule, which is why we have minority rights like freedom of religion.

Besides, the Iraqi constitution actually sets Islam up as the official religion, doesn't it?

What does that have to do with anything?

unless one believes that "al qaeda" is synonymous with "insurgent," the "theocratists" in Iraq are the Shia, who predominantly *framed* the constitution you mention. The actual insurgents in Iraq oppose that constitution and the process that created it.

and s/he does nothing about it except post on DU

Wililngness to fight against occupiers (or illegal juntas) who seize one's country is "disgusting."

is to drive the American "oppressors" out of Iraq. Are you so naive that you believe that?

because there is no legitimate avenue for them.

why do you assume I am naive, you arrogant texan?

is your cowboy hat blocking your view?

and not their views. Guess there is no point to continue discussion.

I'm too "naive" to engage in discussion anyway.

What a quaint little euphemism for "killing innocent people".

Hey, if it helps you sleep at night after a day of justifying murder, I say go for it. :eyes:

who loves freedom more?

the Iraqi insurgent or Dick Cheney?

That's obvious.

You think all this is some game where the person with the most points wins.

you and the bryant person apparently assumed I am an advocate of Iraqi insurgents and immediately began accusing me of things I never said and for positions I neither hold nor endorse.

Nevertheless, I'd still like to hear any one of you offer a positive suggestion what Iraqis who hate the occupation should do.

is just as good as being in freeperland....and don’t call me ignorant did you know me? What kind of shit is that? that is why the democratic party is so fucking mess up just fighting against each other...next I'll be kick out this forum just because "I am so ignorant”.

Well then educate me regarding the insurgents in Iraq , what is their roll why are defending their land, why they want the American troops out , why their not accepting people in power appointed by the US, why their country is in ruins why more than 150000 civilians had die? Please help me to understand ..

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005

Or, maybe you think Human Rights Watch is a pawn of the President?

It's conclusion regarding the motives of the insurgents?

That the primary aim is to drive occupiers out of Iraq.

link

It comes to that conlusion. The primary aim of the insurgents is to drive occupiers out of Iraq.

You should read it.

And, psssttt...I never said it wasn't a reason for the insurgency. I said it wasn't the SOLE reason.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

"misinformed"?--can you defend that assertion?

"empower Bush"?--how?

is disgusting, saying that the Dem's should act like that is more so, period.

If you think that the insurgents are fighting for freedom, based on any reasonable definition of freedom, you are misinformed as well as for saying the Dem's are weak.

You attack the Dem's, you endorse horrible people who happen to not like Bush, you have played the role of the left wing bogeyman, and given fodder to the right, therefore empowering Bush. Congratulations.

I haven't endorsed anyone.

I asked a question.

Your post above is "attacking a Dem"

By pointing out that the insurgents' love of freedom is comparable to that of the repukes, I have given fodder to no one but a handful of self-appointed orthodoxy police on DU.

Dems ARE weak. We control no branch of the Federal government and a minority of state governments. Fool.

Don't be hypocritical.

Orthodoxy requires a group

You are certainly no liberal. The record will show who the fool is....

Many patriots have died defending nations where freedom never existed. The tens of millions of Russians who died fighting Hitler were defending their country. They were not defending freedom. They were fighting for a regime practically as oppressive of freedom as the one they fought. They fought for other reasons. But not for freedom.

If you want to convince me that the insurgents in Iraq are fighting for freedom, show me the liberal faction there. Hold up their writings that insist on a secular state that protects human rights.

From what I have seen, the insurgents are fighting for tribe and religion and Arabism. Not freedom.

there are places in the world with different world views than ours

freedom means they control their own destiny. It does not presuppose what that destiny is.

cannibalism for the cannibals fallacy. Bullshit.

is to impose whatever BL611 thinks is appropriate.

definition which is to use any means necessary, including blowing up innocent children, in order to impose a religious theocracy and oppress others.

Sunnis (the majority of insurgents) DO NOT want a theocracy. The Shia want a theocracy. THey are the ones empowered most by the bush regime's version of "democracy" in Iraq.

the definition you ascribe to me does not reflect anything I have said. It is an inaccurate statement.

I made an above post about the need for minority rights in a liberal democracy, don't waste time with strawmen...

go play outside..

Under the notion of a group defining its own destiny, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was "free," to the extent that it authentically implemented the people's desire there for a religious state.

As a liberal, my chief interest in freedom is at the level of the individual. A group is fighting for freedom when it is trying to implement a political order where individuals have freedom of speech and thought, freedom to travel, freedom from state invasion of their privacy, freedom in their associations, freedom to follow or reject their parents' culture and religion, freedom in their reproductive choices, etc.

I agree that there are places where none of the political factions are fighting for freedom. They are fighting for tribe or religion or a non-liberal political ideology or many of the other things that people throughout history have fought to achieve. In such situations, I usually don't have a dog in the fight. Why should a liberal be concerned with whether the Sunni or Shi'ites prevail? As citizens in the west, we might want to draw a fence between the sides and prevent slaughter.

your country.

choices actually love freedom for all, nor do they even view it as desirable.

If people around them actually started exercising freedoms, all of the people you mention would spontaneously combust. They all thrive on their control over others.

is a slave.

board. Anybody over 70. Anybody that's lived under the kind of despotism we're heading for. These guys

Terrorists are trying to impose their own brand of theocracy on the rest of the people in Iraq. Witness that they kill other Iraqis.

Sunnis do not desire a theocracy.

This poll was probably not a good idea in the first place and too many of the replies are heated personal attacks.