Guerilla Actions in Irak

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?

Cannon fodder not in the sense that they dont know and dont think for themselves why they are joining the army, but in the sense that they will be used as such. Maning the checkpoints, patrolling, maybe convoying etc. the dangerous activities that cost the US so many casualties.

They feel they need a job, and besides the oil industry, there isnt much more than the military "industry"... and ofcourse, some of them are driven by sectarian strife, as are some who join the insurgency.

This isnt a question of things being better anylonger. The insurgents will always be there as long as the US troops are there, and even if the iraqi army will be capable of standing on its own feet, it will still ask for US assistance. Which will mean continued presence, only this time with less troops exposed on the ground and with more Iraqi "cannon fodder".
Also, the US interest is to keep its bases. There are ~ 150,000 US troops in Iraq. In the Fallujah massive operation I think about 10,000 were used. In Qaim ~ 3,000-5,000 were used.
Where do you think the rest of those troops are staying? In huge occupation bases. And what are they doing mostly? Apart from those that are convoying and participating in scattered offensives, they are only... occupying.

They probably had members who fought for various "liberties" but we know for sure one thing brought them together -- the idea of being free of foreign military presence. But we're getting into ideology here, I meant a military comparison.

Are you so sure that the insurgents will disappear if the Coalition will pull out of Irak. I am not as optimistic as you are.

Fine. Militarily, they were not fighting against the US forces initially, but against the South Vietnamese Army. There were no foreign troops to fight when the VC surfaced. You see, one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist". It's just a matter of perspective (and bias) IMO.

It is not for them to disappear. Its their country. Why should they disappear? As a fighting force they probably will, depending on the internal developments that will occur.

Yes, the South Vietnamese government then asked for assistance and then large scale military presence. Thats why the creation of a new iraqi army will not change things. Because they'll need assistance.

However, why do you think the US wants to pull out anyway? They are there to stay. They built huge bases and what they want is a friendly government that would officially ask them to stay. If its not the insurgency excuse, it will be the Iran excuse. With the Iraqi lack of a workable army and equipment comparable to those of its neighbours, the US will be asked to provide security for a long time...

Hi Imperialist,

I have checked the thread on which you claim I demonstrated a history of claiming things without backing them up, but I still haven't found anything.

Stop evading the issue and just tell me/us straight what this grievous error is that I have made.

It still looks to me as though you are demonstrating exactly the failing you are accusing me of - claiming something without backing it up.

You may be right or you may be wrong, but until you stop being vague we will never know, and your opinion on the issue will carry no weight.

Cheers,

Sid.

Check my post dated Jun 18 2005, 02:48 PM on that thread, in case you missed it.

Hi Imperialist,

You ask if my country has ever held elections under occupation. What has this to do with anything? If personal or national experience was more important than a grasp of the facts and an ability to analyse them, nobody who had not served in the Romanian Military would be qualified to contribute to this forum and only those few hundred Romanian servicemen who had actually served in Iraq would be able to contribute to a thread on Iraq.

Terrorism is a method of fighting. It is not the same as resistance. It is perfectly possible to resist in arms without being a terrorist.

In Iraq there is almost no armed resistance at present amongst Shiites and Kurds, who make up some 80% of the population. So your "resistance" is certainly not an Iraqi national phenomenon. It is a sectarian phenomenon currently restricted to some Sunni Iraqis. Prominent amongst them are Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein's politics and who were often part of the terror apparatus of his regime. The other main resisters are foreign Sunni religious extremists or Pan-Arab nationalists, who are not Iraqi at all and who make no effort ever to avoid Iraqi civilian casualties in a campaign of undoubted terror. Thus I think the term "terrorist" is an accurate description of the key players in your not very Iraqi "resistance".

It is perfectly possible that some Shiites will lose patience with the US and begin active resistance as well, but that is not currently the case. At present they and the Kurds are waiting on further elections. Your inherent anti-Americanism is clouding your good judgement and is leading you to overstate your case. This time next year you might be right, but at present you are not.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Imperialist,

You are still squirming in order to evade the issue.

I have checked the latest post you recommend and there is still nothing on it to suggest that I have a history of claiming things without backing them up. My contribution to that post is essentially a list of questions.

The fact that you cannot or will not put up here the details of the facts I have supposedly advanced without back-up and which have subsequently been found wrong indicates to me that you have no case.

If you have a case, please put it here and stop evading the issue. Try answering these simple questions:

1) What facts did I put up? (There are plenty of those to choose from).

2) Where were they lacking in back-up? (There are bound to be some of those).

3) How were they inaccurate? (I would be surprised if there are absolutely none of these, but hopefully not enough to make up a "history").

Just put the answers down here in black and white where everyone can see them. It may hurt, but I can take it.

Cheers,

Sid.

.

I think it has when emitting judgments of value regarding a "fair election" under occupation. Why dont you give a straight answer for a change? Was your country ever on the receiving end of an occupation in this century, yes or no?

My only case was that the Iraqis have the right to resist and question the legitimacy of elections under occupation. Thats not anti-americanism but only a reasonable and logical statement. If you think people are going to roll over and play dead just because the americans storm in with their army, I suggest you'd better join the neocons. They'll surely promote you to a high function.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 12, 2005 08:27 pm

Read my post dated Jun 18 2005, 02:48 PM. If you dont agree with something said in it, reply to it. Dont ask me to re-write my case.

Hi Imperialist,

Ever willing to lead by example, I offer the following straight answer:

No, my country was not on the receiving end of an occupation this century. Nor was it on the receiving end of an occupation last century, with the exception of the Channel Islands from 1940 to 1945, or the century before, or the century before that........

Your turn for straight answers now to just a few of the questions you have previously avoided:

1) So what if my country hasn't been under occupation in this period? How is this relevant?

If you really believe that I have put up facts that have been without back-up and have subsequently been proved wrong, you will, of course, also give straight answers to the following previously answered questions:

2) What facts did I put up? (There are plenty of those to choose from).

3) Where were they lacking in back-up? (There are bound to be some of those).

4) How were they inaccurate? (I would be surprised if there are absolutely none of these, but hopefully not enough to make up a "history".)

The post you keep referring to has no relevance to your acusation against me. If it does, perhaps you would care to explain how?

As I see it, you have made an unsupported accusation against me which you have been unable to back-up in any way despite my repeated requests that you do so. It seems to me that your problem is that you cannot bear to admit that you may have been in error and are squirming every which way in order to avoid admitting this.

So, you can't put up any evidence to back your proposition and you can't apologise. What are you going to do?

My bet is that as usual you will not give a straight answer to the above questions but will instead either put up another irrelevant link as camouflage, try to the change the subject again or fill your next post up with waffle in order to quickly bury my questions.

Go on. Surprise me.

Yours in eager anticipation,

Sid.

P.S. Of course the Iraqis have a right to resist and to question the elections. Who has suggested otherwise?

However, it doesn't seem to be the case that the great majority are resisting or are questioning the elections.

Do I take it from your post that you now also believe this to be true?

Sid.

That is the whole issue. I am not so sure they will disappear (as a military force obviously) even if the Coalition pulls out. Have they ever claimed such things?
Also I don't think that it's the country of all the insurgents, as there are reports of non-Irakis taking part in the fighting.

The Coalition will eventually have to pull out, at least a very large part of their forces, as they can't stay forver in the Gulf.

Look at these insurgents Victor:

http://crisispictures.org/?p=155

I think they are not the ones supposed to disappear from that country, I think they were born there.
The largest part of the insurgency is made up of this kind of people, not of foreigners.

Hi Imperialist,

Ah, yes, the old "Answer-somebody-else's-post-in-order-to-bury-awkward-questions-deep-in-the-thread" Ploy. Always a favourite!

Cheers,

Sid.

If you never knew what that means dont tell others who know from their grandparents or from history books what "fair" elections under occupation actually were.
You can ofcourse present your opinions, as we all do, but dont be so outraged if people in a country that actually knew occupation dont buy so easily the occupiers' claims. We are on different levels of historical evolution.
And besides, I bet that though your country was never occupied, it did a lot of occupation in foreign lands, huh? Is my guess correct? How many countries did it "civilise"?