Guerilla Actions in Irak

Hi Imperialist,

Yup, but it doesn't mean they are representative of national public opinion. If they were, they wouldn't be shooting at the Yanks - yet.

Cheers,

Sid.

Apparently the Iraqi public opinion is given 12 years of meditation before making its mind up. According to Rumsfeld.


take care

Hi Imperialist,

Iraqi public opinion is fluid, like any other public opinion. At the moment they are in a position of having had recent election which produced a government that does not want the US out and public opion polls still support that position. But as I wrote in my earlier post, this should have the proviso "yet" added.

Rumsfeld has set no timetable. Nor has anyone else in the US administration. Where does your "12 years" come from? Is it not his recent response to a question about how long insurgencies can last?

Cheers,

Sid.

Neither the polls nor the elections have any legitimacy. The Poles after WWII also had elections under soviet occupation, so did Romania etc. It doesnt mean anything. The power that makes those elections possible will also make sure no surprise pops out during those elections.


take care

Hi Imperialist,

The fact that an outside power makes elections possible doesn't mean that they are not legitimate or that no surprises can arise. For example, countries that opposed the war in the UN recoignise the Iraqi election results and the interim prime minister put in by the Americans didn't win them.

Iraq also has a vibrant free press at the moment and the Americans are not in a position to interfere with its opinion polls. The only people currently actively opposed to this free press are the Sunni and foreign resistance.

If you have any evidence that the US has rigged the Iraqi elections or opinion polls, you should bring it forward.

Cheers,

Sid.

Elections under outside power intervention are not legitimate. Especially when that outside power has tens of thousands of soldiers and bases in that country and it intends to keep them there.
You may argue otherwise, but its "against nature". May I also ask you if your country ever knew first hand what occupation is all about? How elections were "free", and the press "vibrant"?

Haha. This sounded like our politicians' excuses: if you have any proof of corruption, please bring it forward.

Haha. This sounded like our politicians' excuses: if you have any proof of corruption, please bring it forward.

Sid is right. When making a controversial claim, you should always back it up with evidences or sources.

Sid has a history of making unbacked claims later proven to be false, and yet you failed to say anything there. Why is that?
To get back on topic, as I said, elections in countries occupied by foreign powers are illegitimate. Asking for proof of riggings is silly. I imagine the soviets said the same. "Hey, why dont you come here and prove elections were rigged?" Right......

Hi Imperialist,

Sorry for the delay. I have been on holiday.

Well there you go again. According to you "Sid has a history of unbacked claims later proved to be false".

Isn't this just another of your own "unbacked claims"? If you offer an opinion, it has no value unless backed by some evidence. If I do have "a history of unbacked claims later proved to be false", you have offered no evidence of it.

Who says elections in occupied countries are illegitimate? So far on Iraq we have you and an assortment of Sunni terrorists who think they are illegitimate on one side, and the majority of the Iraqi electorate and the entire international community on the other. I think I will back the opoinion of the latter groups.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi.
Well, I was referring to this thread:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...=15&#entry34611

Where you claimed something without having anything to back it up. And it was proven false.

If you think elections in occupied countries are legitimate, that may be the case as long as the occupation lasts. But I dont ask you to understand that, unless ofcourse, you were on the other side of the occupation. Has your country ever been occupied for you to understand how "fair elections under occupation" work?

When your country is occupied you are not a terrorist if you resist. And the international community has no business in telling you otherwise.
I thought you understood that.

Sid, if your country (you are an american? apropos...) is invaded, what would be your actions? You may continue your life under foreign control, or you may put your hands on the weapons and try to send to heavean or hell some of the invaders?
You know, in some countryes is a tradition to fight against invaders. In those countryes who knows what means to be under foreign occupation or whatever kind of military dictatorship, etc. Sometimes doesen't matter who occupy your country - what was the reason. Sometimes? No... You think iraqis fight for the glory of Hussein? No... They fight now to force liberation of theyr country. Leaders came, and go in some ways... What counts is to have a free country.


I ask something. In future is possible to find in space a planet with an atmosfera like ours, but populate. I will see at tv or i will read in forums... "local e.t.'s who fight yet against our mans, are only extremists who reject the ideea of ..."


Iama

Good comparison Iama! Most likely those aliens will be primitive forms of life who reject the idea of democracy.

That is the problem. Is Irak really under occupation? And if it was so, why wouldn't the insurgents attack just Coalition forces? Instead they kill more of their own nationals than foreign troops. One of the latest bomb attacks was at an Iraki Army recruting center and killed at least 18 people. IMO it is pretty difficult to label them as freedom fighters, as they aren't fighting for freedom. It would be like calling Fidel Castro and Che Guevara's guerillas freedom fighters.

That is the problem. Is Irak really under occupation? And if it was so, why wouldn't the insurgents attack just Coalition forces? Instead they kill more of their own nationals than foreign troops. One of the latest bomb attacks was at an Iraki Army recruting center and killed at least 18 people. IMO it is pretty difficult to label them as freedom fighters, as they aren't fighting for freedom. It would be like calling Fidel Castro and Che Guevara's guerillas freedom fighters.

Well, ofcourse they target the recruiting stations. By whom are the recruits trained? By the occupation army specialists. What are they trained for? To fight the resistance members and spare the US army the human cost of the occupation. Cannon fodder. Would the US army pull out if they trained enough soldiers? No, they would stick around to provide assistance so that the insurgents are destroyed. So they will pull back to the safety of their bases and will push the iraqi army up front, giving it high-tech air and armour support.

But this is guerilla warfare. If Sid can find a perfect military justification for the nuclear attacks on Japan, he surely does not turn soft and humane when small scale guerilla tactics are concerned...
Castro and Che are not appropriate comparisons, more appropriate would be to look back at Vietnam war. Although not even that is a perfect comparison, because the guerilla fighters then had important external support/havens, while in Iraq apart from a few thousand fighters they are entirely dependent on local supply of arms and technology, and recruits.

p.s. well, if these messages are off-topic I think they should be moved to the "Guerilla Actions in Irak" thread, as we are discussing the resistance/guerilla.

take care

Cannon fodder? Maybe some, but can you be so sure that they all are canon fodder, that don't have the ability to think for themselves. Some probably lost relatives in suicidal attacks carried out by the insurgents or some (the Shia) may think that the insurgents don't represent them. Many are probably in for the money. Nevertheless, their desire to join the new Iraki army/police means that they feel the new government somehow represents them.

You say the Coalition forces are occupation troops in Irak. When they start training local security forces, you say that they are training cannon fodder. I fail to understand how would you see things going on better. Do you think that just retreating and leaving feeble state structure behind would be better? Do you actually think that the suicidal bombings will stop? I don't think so. Until the Iraki military isn't rebuilt and they can deal with the insurgents on their own, there is no point in retreating. It would only generate more problems than they already have.

Indeed Castro and Che seemed to enjoy much more support from the locals than the Iraki insurgents do.

The VC could be a better comparison, but for what "freedom" were they actually fighting for?