[eklipse]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

Anyone would think the Iraqis don't like their country being occupied.

[Mithras]

eklipse, Iraq is a big and complicated place.

I opposed this war -- went to the marches, wrote the letters -- and still think it was an enormous mistake.

But I also think it's pretty clear that there is a pretty small group of Iraqis and foreigners who are bent on violent resistance to the U.S. presence. Most Iraqis, it seems pretty clear, would like the U.S. troops to get on their way home, and are critical of the mismanagement since the end of "major combat", but also are convinced that the Americans have good intentions and are doing things to improve the situation.

If a few suicide bombers can paint the entire country as "opposed to occupation", then what do these guys mean about American's feelings about their own government?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mithras:
But I also think it's pretty clear that there is a pretty small group of Iraqis and foreigners who are bent on violent resistance to the U.S. presence. Most Iraqis, it seems pretty clear, would like the U.S. troops to get on their way home, and are critical of the mismanagement since the end of "major combat", but also are convinced that the Americans have good intentions and are doing things to improve the situation.

The key point is that there may be relatively small pockets of violent resistance - now, but, if the mismanagement and self-serving politics persists - America can expect the 'benefit of the doubt', currently granted to the US by many Iraqis, to evaporate and the small resistance movement to get decidedly bigger and more violent.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The key point is that there may be relatively small pockets of violent resistance - now, but, if the mismanagement and self-serving politics persists - America can expect the 'benefit of the doubt', currently granted to the US by many Iraqis, to evaporate and the small resistance movement to get decidedly bigger and more violent.

And you are in favor or opposed to this scenario?

Like i said, I bitterly opposed the war, but I'm very wary of anyone who seems to unconsciously wish for more chaos and destruction, just to justify their position.

[lil'babykitten]

I don't think anyone would be in favour of such a scenario, that's not the point here anyway.

The explanation for this outcome is very simple, it's amazing how everyone in the Bush admin seems to be baffled by the response they are getting in Iraq.

No country likes being occupied. it is as simple as that.

It's not going to get any better, only worse as more and more Iraqis get sick of the US's daily presence there.

[boots]

One thing that makes thi whle mess a little different is the fact that the violence is claimng the livs of Iraqis too. That may not give us a lot of support from the general public, but it delays the idea that WE are causing the problems.

I don't like the situation, but that is irrelevent. It'm not in control. I didn't like the war *on the basis of WMD threat* but I see the need to stick it out and not just pull out. If we leave a power vacuum, we end up with another Afghanistan.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mithras:
And you are in favor or opposed to this scenario?

I am opposed to any scenario that results in a country being invaded, occupied and raped. I don't wish for the scenario I described to be played out, but, I guarantee it will play out if the US doesn't get it's act together. Soon.

Like i said, I bitterly opposed the war, but I'm very wary of anyone who seems to unconsciously wish for more chaos and destruction, just to justify their position.

As am I - I am also wary of those who would dismiss and ignore the plight of another people in an attempt to justify their position. (I don't mean you)

[eklipse]

Originally posted by boots:
One thing that makes thi whle mess a little different is the fact that the violence is claimng the livs of Iraqis too. That may not give us a lot of support from the general public, but it delays the idea that WE are causing the problems.

One of the Coalition's few success stories appears to have been turning the Iraqis against each other. You have some that are supportive of their American occupiers, some who are glad that Saddam is gone and now want the Americans gone too, and some hardcore Saddam loyalists who want their man back. Those aligned with 'The Coalition' are likely seen as traitors and conspirators by the other two groups and hence the friction.

Thus far, the occupiers have done little to appease the two hostile groups and even appear to be, at times, trying the patience of their puppet government and it's cautious supporters.

If things don't change, Iraq is looking at a civil war before too long - or, was that the Coalition's plan all along?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by eklipse:
have done little to appease the two hostile groups

ahh, that magic word, 'appease'. Chamberlain would have loved to sip tea with you, infidel appeaser. Pander to the enemies of democracy and freedom, give them what they want. Bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and hope that things get better.

Worthless pacifist and appeaser. Your attitude will cost more lives as the briggands and terrorists are emboldened by your cowardice.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
ahh, that magic word, 'appease'. Chamberlain would have loved to sip tea with you, infidel appeaser. Pander to the enemies of democracy and freedom, give them what they want. Bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and hope that things get better.

Worthless pacifist and appeaser. Your attitude will cost more lives as the briggands and terrorists are emboldened by your cowardice.

Do you even know what you're blabbering about?

If one is attempting to bring peace and stability to a divided country, one has no choice but to try and appease the concerns of all sides. The alternative, in this case, is the acceptance that America does not really want to bring any sort of freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq and is concerned only with pillaging and plundering the country's various resources whilst the Iraqis fight amongst themselves.


Infidel? Speak for yourself.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Do you even know what you're blabbering about?

If one is attempting to bring peace and stability to a divided country, one has no choice but to try and appease the concerns of all sides.

Appeasement does not work in the face of a determined aggressor. That's why no matter how much you negotiate or how far you modify your policies, terrorists will keep coming. Hamas, Al Queda, Islamic Jihad, et al--they don't care. They only want to murder Americans and Jews, and will use whatever 'cause' is convenient.

Your pacifist-appeasement leanings would bring the world to total violence and anarchy. It would become an even larger and more virulent breeding ground for death and terrorism than it already is.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Appeasement does not work in the face of a determined aggressor. That's why no matter how much you negotiate or how far you modify your policies, terrorists will keep coming. Hamas, Al Queda, Islamic Jihad, et al--they don't care. They only want to murder Americans and Jews, and will use whatever 'cause' is convenient.

I'm not talking about appeasing a 'determined aggressor', I'm talking about appeasing a volatile situation that has the potential to create more 'determined aggressors'. Iraq hasn't descended into a Israel-Palestine fun-fest - yet - I'm anxious to see that it doesn't.

Your pacifist-appeasement leanings would bring the world to total violence and anarchy. It would become an even larger and more virulent breeding ground for death and terrorism than it already is.

Your antagonist-incitement leanings are liable to result in more trucks laden with explosives detonating near American troops and more planes flying into buildings near you.

[boots]

Originally posted by eklipse:
One of the Coalition's few success stories appears to have been turning the Iraqis against each other. You have some that are supportive of their American occupiers, some who are glad that Saddam is gone and now want the Americans gone too, and some hardcore Saddam loyalists who want their man back. Those aligned with 'The Coalition' are likely seen as traitors and conspirators by the other two groups and hence the friction.

Thus far, the occupiers have done little to appease the two hostile groups and even appear to be, at times, trying the patience of their puppet government and it's cautious supporters.

If things don't change, Iraq is looking at a civil war before too long - or, was that the Coalition's plan all along?

Yes, an excellent point. I was trying to say (but I wasn't clear) that this simply delays some of the effects of occupation. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't be messy in it's own way...

I don't think the goal was to start a civil war, but I will say that a power struggle was inevitable. So long as there is no vacuum of power, the chances are better of them coming out better off.

I don't think the "coalition" (meaning the US) will allow the ones doing the bombing to end up winning the power struggle...so I don't think we can afford to let this get too out of hand. But a power struggle was inevitable.