No sympathy at all. Just pointing out something that I believe is becoming more obvious as time goes on....that the "Iraqi Insurgents" are not all 1) Saddam's cohorts or 2)Al Qaeda.
Do we pay more attention to tens of millions of law-abiding appreciative Iraqis or a few thousand law-breaking, murdering Iraqi nationalists?
Not everyone fighting us in Iraq are terrorists or baathists! Can't they be iraqi's who believe that we should not be in their country? Why, ooo why do conservatives find this so hard to believe. If we were invaded by a country and told that we were being liberated i might find it hard to believe.
I'm not particularly sure what you mean?? Are you saying there should be more stories about the millions of Iraqis doing well as opposed to the insurgents? If so, do you also believe there should be more stories about the everyday non-terrorist Muslim than Al Queda?
Yes, and we should hear from these Muslim's what they think about this scourge of terrorisim that is sweeping through their religion. In fact, we should hear what exactly the Muslim leaders intend to do about it, and how they intend to help stop it. It would be great to hear these things.......I for one would welcome the theocracies help in rooting out Islamic terrorism. DD
Some could be Iraqis who believe that we should not be in their country. But I think some could also be Iraqis who are taking the power vacuum that is there and taking advantage of it. However, I believe that most of the attacks are by who people say they are: Al Quaeda and former Bathists. If "normal" Iraqis want us out of Iraq all they have to do is take control of their own country. The problem with threads like these is that people will seize what little evidence they can to support their point. If you hate Bush you will emphasize how the insurgents are not all former Bathists and if you support Bush you will emphasize the opposite. Party politics at its finest. Anytime there is a power vacuum there will be chaos. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I read somewhere that it took the US about 7 years to get on its feet after the revolution. Give them time.
However, I believe that most of the attacks are by who people say they are: Al Quaeda and former Bathists. First hand information? Or just your best guess?
111chase111, I agree 100%. My point was not that "most" insurgents are just normal Iraqi’s but some are. Some are foreign fighters some are Baathists. There is a power vacuum with 3 different ethnic "tribes" plus foreign religious extremist vying for power.
Will the will of the minority, murdering Iraqi nationalists trump the will of the majority, peace-loving Iraqi nationalists who appreciate the help that the Americans are offering of bringing democratic reform to Iraq?
No I am not playing any politics here. You left out one significant fraction of insurgents - the shiites led by Moqtada Al Sadr, against whom US troops waged some bloody battles not long ago. At least in public, Bush has NOT made an effort to distinguish the three major components of the Iraqi insurgents faced by US troops - extreme shiites, former baathists, and foreign al Qaeda fighters, thus misleading American people to believe we are just fighting "al Qaeda terrorists" in Iraq. How the three major fractions of insurgents are broken down (percentage wise) is anyone's guess. You are absolutely correct in stating there's a power vacuum there in Iraq now - which, I hate to say again, dispels the myth of significance of the Iraq election held in past January.
Giddy, you are a reasonable man and DEFINITELY a reasonable conservative. Have you considered that all these "insurgents" aren't merely former Bathists and evil Saddam hit-men but regular Iraqi's thrust into the fighting? How many Iraqi's, with at least a smidge of patriotism and a backbone, do you think have picked up a Klashnikov or made an IED after American tanks rolled through his village and killed his little brother or flattened his home going after a terrorist? I know that isn't our INTENT as occupiers, but casualties from close in fighting and stree-to-street battles are going to be suffered by the populace. Is it REALLY that hard to understand why Iraqi's, regardless of our help, would get fed-up and join the fight? If the Mexican army invaded Texas to take out an oppressive regime and bring a dictator to justice, I might be enthused--once a Mexican APC blows through my backyard chasing "outside agitators" from Louisiana and stray fire kills my brother I might be inclined to do something about it. I May not care that much for the Louisiana insurgents or their goal; to further advance the construction of crappy casinos, even worse roads and trailor-trash rights, but they have guns and coordination....scratch that, at least as coordinated as a Cajun can be...hehehe So I join up and fight those who have destroyed my life, the occupying Mexican army, now that I have an axe to grind. Soon, I'll be kicking the Cajuns back over the Sabine after they try and convert me to LSU-dumb and kill the local football coach for being a UT alum. WHY is this so hard to understand? Take away my pathetic attempts at humor and substitute with Iraq. Surely, as a thinking people we can appreciate that our actions are creating more home-grown insurgents despite our best intentions. Unfortunately, once again, US foreign policy cannot see the forest for the trees
I believe it goes a little deeper than that, Giddy. The majority of Iraqis, I believe, are happy that the US came in and took out Saddam. I also believe, now that we are two years into it, this same Iraqi majority is getting restless about the lack of rebuilding and sees the US as occupiers rather than liberators. The key is not only in restoring order...the key is in restoring basic services that they had under Saddam (irregardless of his dictatorship) that they haven't had since the US took him out. This is the first step to normalcy, and it hasn't happened yet. Why? Giddy, would you be able to handle two years of raw sewage streaming in front of your house? I know I wouldn't....
Excellent analogy. I may have to show this to my Cajun brother-in-law! Giddy, do you finally "get it" now? Keep D&D Civil!!
<b>wouldabeen23 Giddy, you are a reasonable man and DEFINITELY a reasonable conservative. </b> Would it be inappropriate to say: "I wanna kiss you!" You're the first person here (who might disagree with me) to call me reasonable. I'll settle for a high-five... <b>Have you considered that all these "insurgents" aren't merely former Bathists and evil Saddam hit-men but regular Iraqi's thrust into the fighting? How many Iraqi's, with at least a smidge of patriotism and a backbone, do you think have picked up a Klashnikov or made an IED after American tanks rolled through his village and killed his little brother or flattened his home going after a terrorist?</b> Of course I have. How many? What percentage? The one breakdown I saw had them predominantly Saudis and the AQs as I recall, followed by Syrians, Pakistanis, and somewhere down the list were Iraqis. When I get the chance I'll search for that data again. These Iraqis with a smidge of backbone (as you say) are just terrorists hiding behind a flag of patriotism. If they were Americans doing the same damn thing (killing as many Americans as they had to to kill one enemy) they would get no support from you. Why do they here? Show me a picture of a dead child and I don't want to root for either side, but it's not that simple. <b>I know that isn't our INTENT as occupiers, but casualties from close in fighting and stree-to-street battles are going to be suffered by the populace. Is it REALLY that hard to understand why Iraqi's, regardless of our help, would get fed-up and join the fight?</b> I would bet that we haven't killed as many Iraqis since the close of major battles as the insurgents have? Anyone have data on this? If you are right, these "fed-up" Iraqis are joining the fight to fight alongside of the side that is gleefully killing them wantonly and, if they succeed, will rule them as The Taliban did Afghanistan. Good news, huh? <b>If the Mexican army invaded Texas to take out an oppressive regime and bring a dictator to justice, I might be enthused--once a Mexican APC blows through my backyard chasing "outside agitators" from Louisiana and stray fire kills my brother I might be inclined to do something about it. I May not care that much for the Louisiana insurgents or their goal; to further advance the construction of crappy casinos, even worse roads and trailor-trash rights, but they have guns and coordination....scratch that, at least as coordinated as a Cajun can be...hehehe So I join up and fight those who have destroyed my life, the occupying Mexican army, now that I have an axe to grind. Soon, I'll be kicking the Cajuns back over the Sabine after they try and convert me to LSU-dumb and kill the local football coach for being a UT alum. WHY is this so hard to understand? Take away my pathetic attempts at humor and substitute with Iraq. Surely, as a thinking people we can appreciate that our actions are creating more home-grown insurgents despite our best intentions.</b> Did I say it is hard to understand? Is everyone responding that way? I think not. I'm not sure your reckless characterization of the Mexican (US) Army is that common. How many millions of Iraqis lost brothers, sisters, fathers, sons, mothers, uncles, aunts, and grandparents to just this kind of violence thanks to Saddam's regime. Are we not fighting in their stead? Why is it the insurgents business? It's not about Iraqi nationalism. It's about anti-democratic motives IMHO.
Are you trying to tell me that these Iraqis think that the US works to restore services and then destroys their own progress just to be able to be occupiers? Are the grandstanding critics saying the same thing? I also think you've overstated Iraq's comfort under Saddam. I read somewhere that Baghdad and Tikrit had reliable electricity under Saddam but almost no one else in the country did. Since Saddam's departure, most of the rest of Iraq is far better off.
Yes...let's settle for a high-five... Seriously though, take away the fact that we don't know the percentages, exactly, of the fighters. My point, is that it is beyond naive to assert that our occupation hasn't created more home-grown fighters that believe that they are fighting for their homeland against an occupier that simply replaced a Tyrant with a broken system and even MORE civilian casualties.
Absolutely not. I'm trying to tell you that these Iraqis do not feel the US has put enough effort into restoring the services that were damaged by the US invasion. When their perception is that the US doesn't care about their day-to-day lives, it fuels the insurgency.
