UTD, the west never gave a damn about the people living in this area for decades either. Brutal occupations, dividing their homelands, installing even brutal leaders. I am pretty sure the attackers don’t care about the people, all they want is to get rid of this continuation of occupation.
and for the stone throwing kids, IDF bullets don’t pare them either.
Seminole,
Please understand me, i am not appearing to justify anything... i would never dream of justifying anyone's slaughter, be they Americans, Greeks or whatever. That's exactly what i want to avoid doing. That's not what i'm here for on gupshup.
What i can try to understand, is that some of these individuals albeit not all are consumed by bitterness and revenge. Does that justify the blood that drips from their hands ? NEVER. Does it mean that i would like to try to remove the conditions that gives rise to this? Yes, so that no more people have to lose their lives.
There was a quote from an Iraqi mother, a few days back, which i pasted in one of these threads... where she had said she was still grateful that the US had ousted Hussein and his regime, but that she now viewed US soldiers as (her word) "scum". One can be simultaneously anti-Hussein and anti-US - it is not one or the other, all the time. The fact is, we still don't know who is responsible for these attacks. So it is not possible, IMHO, to say they are anti-western, anti-American, or whatever. They are anti-invasion, and that's ALL i know about them so far. They may be nonIraqis, at least one of them was carrying a Syrian passport, but for the other dozens and dozens - i really don't know.
>>Chaos, instability, murder, mayhem and terror will not achieve it.* Do you really believe that their goals are for a free, peaceful and representative Iraq?<<*
i agree with the bold part of your statement. So why aren't more people realizing that US policy towards Iraq is a failure? For a "free, peaceful and representative Iraq", what could be better than letting the Iraqis determine their own fate subsequent to having been led by an interim UN authority? The US policy clearly isn't working - i think that is fairly well established by now.
250 million and growing......I think the UK US lead occpation failed in identifying the badawi who still after 50 years knows that Syria and Iraq are just names on green and blue document.
Precisely :k: i don’t know whether the attackers ‘care’ for the people or not. In their warped way of thinking, they may see their actions less damaging than the actions of two occupying forces whom they believe will stay on in their country for an indefinite amount of time, plundering their natural resources. i am not justifying their beliefs, i am simply trying to understand a very complex issue.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MiniMe: *
UTD, I am pretty sure the attackers don’t care about the people, all they want is to get rid of this continuation of occupation.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately I think that's only one of the things they want to do. I'm of the opinion that it's better for Iraq to have U.S. troops on the ground, providing security so that Iraq can be rebuilt rather than removal of U.S. troops and putting U.S. fighters to work pounding terrorist targets from the sky, reconstruction doesn't work as well in the latter.
pull the US troops out and let the Zionists hawks send in the Israeli troops to take care of their own crap, and let them come in the line of fire. It's as simple as that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
So why aren't more people realizing that US policy towards Iraq is a failure? For a "free, peaceful and representative Iraq", what could be better than letting the Iraqis determine their own fate subsequent to having been led by an interim UN authority? The US policy clearly isn't working - i think that is fairly well established by now.
[/QUOTE]
I think at this point only the die hard, far right ditto heads think the US policy is working. Bush has blown it, plain and simple. But would these trouble makers be any more open to an interim UN authority? They have already displayed their feelings by blowing up some of them. I have doubts that would change much. Unfortunately I do not think that the Iraqis have the will, experience, knowledge, institutions, cohesiveness or power to set up a free, peaceful and representative country on their own.
Nadia, what I meant is that these people are not loyal to a man, they are loyal to a race. The major operators in Iraq are Arab nationalists. They are happy Saddam is gone. To them, Saddam screwed up Arab nationalism just as Stalin screwed up Soviet communism. Now that he is gone they can work freely toward their own goal. Problem is, once they get us out of their way, if they do, I'm sure the rifts will open up amongst them. But for now they are all united in the short-term goal of removing the Allied occupation.
The idea that they are striking the Red Cross and UN because of those orgs' blindness to former oppression is an overrationalization. However, it is a true sentiment and one that they are exploiting. That is how they justify their actions with the public, but it is not their reason for attacking. They attack those aid organizations because they know that without them the US cannot fulfill its mission. Once the aid organizations are cut back or pulled out we would not be able to replace them--we have enough trouble filling our military role, there's no way we could handle that and the added humanitarian workload. In short, selecting these targets is strategic, not emotional. It is the quickest route to removing the occupation and probably meeting that goal with a lot less loss of life. If they were to face the military head-on, between their attacks and the guaranteed military response, you are sure to see a lot more innocents die on the sidelines. In their minds this is perfectly just and rational.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: *
Chaos, instability, murder, mayhem and terror will not achieve it. Do you really believe that their goals are for a free, peaceful and representative Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
**Seminole*, as I said above, the idea is not to terrorize for the sake of it. They believe that they know best how society should be and that they are the people best suited to bring it to reality. Just like we knew democracy was better than imperialism. This is where you have to set aside judgement of whether or not they are right about it (I myself am sure they are not).
They are not trying to create perpetual chaos, mayhem and terror. They believe that is the only way out of the present situation. Once they reach their short-term goal of removing the occupation they expect peace and prosperity to immediately flourish under them. That's not too dissimilar to the idea of us using force in the short-term, only to change the existing situation, and expecting Utopia to follow. The problem is reality doesn't let such optimism work so easily. A broad vision is easy to see--that's what we had, and what they have now--seeing that vision with all the details and minutiae included is much harder. Few of them see the details that await them in reality. They only wallow in the comfort of a perfect dream. They understand that people are suffering as a result of their actions. But they also understand the concept of collateral damage. They think that by following this quick but painful route for ousting us the price will be repaid several times over. They believe that causing such suffering now is worth the peace that they see in their dreams.
Problem is, their dream is incomplete and doomed to fail. So, is it truly worth it? No. That's why we have to work every angle. We can't resign ourselves to the Israeli management style of action/reaction. We have to develop a healthy plurality in Iraq and nurture the seeds of development. We have to gain the cooperation of other nations. We have to cut the chaff and devote ourselves to the fundamentals--that means take the soldiers off of the useless hunt for WMD and place them where they can make a difference. The current management structure is a mess. That needs to change. We are capable. We are the deciding factor. We just need to wake up to reality ourselves.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by spoon: *
**Nadia*, what I meant is that these people are not loyal to a man, they are loyal to a race. The major operators in Iraq are Arab nationalists. They are happy Saddam is gone. To them, Saddam screwed up Arab nationalism just as Stalin screwed up Soviet communism. Now that he is gone they can work freely toward their own goal. Problem is, once they get us out of their way, if they do, I'm sure the rifts will open up amongst them. But for now they are all united in the short-term goal of removing the Allied occupation.
The idea that they are striking the Red Cross and UN because of those orgs' blindness to former oppression is an overrationalization. However, it is a true sentiment and one that they are exploiting. That is how they justify their actions with the public, but it is not their reason for attacking. They attack those aid organizations because they know that without them the US cannot fulfill its mission. Once the aid organizations are cut back or pulled out we would not be able to replace them--we have enough trouble filling our military role, there's no way we could handle that and the added humanitarian workload. In short, selecting these targets is strategic, not emotional. It is the quickest route to removing the occupation and probably meeting that goal with a lot less loss of life. If they were to face the military head-on, between their attacks and the guaranteed military response, you are sure to see a lot more innocents die on the sidelines. In their minds this is perfectly just and rational.
[/QUOTE]
I partially agree with your point, that the people are fighting to remove the occupiers, although, one cannot take Iraq out of the Arab, and Muslim world. There's an overwhelming sense of resentment due to previous conflicts, and injustices done. Occupation in Iraq has just given a lot of these groups an opportunity to directly engage the US in a guerilla conflict. There’s money, ammunition, and most importantly people willing to fight throughout the Arab world. These are some of the core reasons behind this sustained campaign. Arabs have to put up a stiff resistance, otherwise their own identity, and existence will be jeopardized over the long run.
I think attack on the targets such as the UN and Red Cross more has to do with their affiliation with the US, and they are considered not neutral, but actually assisting in strengthening this occupation. To a larger extent, one shouldn’t be surprised at this kind of response, as millions of Iraqis perished due to crippling UN sanctions. And, finally the endorsement by the UN of US’ occupation left no doubt in people’s minds in the Arab world, that the body is a mere tool actually there to assist the US.
We are at a crossroad, where there’s plenty of fuel to be added to this fire, and this conflict is going to go on for many more years.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by outlaw: *
I think attack on the targets such as the UN and Red Cross more has to do with their affiliation with the US, and they are considered not neutral, but actually assisting in strengthening this occupation. To a larger extent, one shouldn’t be surprised at this kind of response, as millions of Iraqis perished due to crippling UN sanctions. And, finally the endorsement by the UN of US’ occupation left no doubt in people’s minds in the Arab world, that the body is a mere tool to actually there to assist the US.
[/QUOTE]
No doubt many people follow that idea of it.. but I'm talking about higher up the food-chain. In the Revolution (pick one) the foot soldiers may have fought because of a grudge against the government, some kind of revenge against their oppression.. but the people holding the constitutional conventions, the ones that kept things within the bounds of the big picture, saw only strategy. To the big-wigs, what use is there in revenge? That is fighting for the past. They want to fight for the future. Their reasons are to meet a goal, the public's reason can be something else, as long as they agree on the action. That's what's happening here. The attacks are planned to reach the goal of removing the occupation. The soldiers carry out the plan because they don't like the target and/or agree with the goal. The public accepts the plan, even grudgingly, because they too dislike the target and/or agree with the goal.
**
With all due respect 
i think maybe Iraqis can answer that question better. That sounds a little bit condescending and paternalistic, to me - i could be wrong and am misinterpreting your comment. i just think that Iraqis themselves know better what they are capable of. No one built a “free, peaceful and representative country” in Afghanistan either during the 1980s. Maybe the Iraqis need as little external interference - and that includes Arab as well as American interferences. i am not saying i am right, i could be wrong. This is just my personal (biased) opinion.
**
Thank you, Spoon, that is precisely the clarification i was seeking. Thank you for taking the time to type that all out.