Iraqis voice support for attacks on UK troops (2 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

I don't believe that America, the most self loving nation of all, would committ billions upon billions of dollars to Iraq without really caring about the liberation of its people. Irrespective of whether you believe they went there souly for the control of oil, and irrespective of whether you believe America is capable of actually helping another nation, you don't committ that much money to a cause you don't give a shit about.

 

[walrusbear]

I believe that the Iraqi's could very well end up better off after the war (admittedly, this belief is harder to hold given recent events) and I don't believe that the islamic militant movements in the middle east are all about fighting imperialism, many of them I believe wish to export their own beliefs.

you're right about militants
i think US intervention didn't help

I don't believe that America, the most self loving nation of all, would committ billions upon billions of dollars to Iraq without really caring about the liberation of its people. Irrespective of whether you believe they went there souly for the control of oil, and irrespective of whether you believe America is capable of actually helping another nation, you don't committ that much money to a cause you don't give a shit about.

i'd say the money put into the project is more about saving face and attempting to maintain an international image of power

 

[Comrade nathan]

As for the current situation, as far as I can see, the only thing that's keeping the entire region from collapsing into greater instability is the prescence of the US military. Granted, they're doing a crappy job from whatever position you're looking at it, but if they weren't there, it'll be alot worse

Thats just wrong. The people of Iraq will always fight a foreign power.

I have said before that during the Iraq election every party's main policy was to remove the foreign occupation. The new government of Iraq has betrayed it's people by not telling the foreign troops to remove.

Secondly, many from the armed resistance have agreed to stop violent action against an Iraqi government if the US leave. My source is a lady who works with the organisation Our Home Iraq. This organisation gives homes to orphaned children.

This makes complete sense as all attacks are against US and Uk forces and any of its collaborators. It's just a sad fact that civillians are caught in the violence, though they are never the trarget.

Anything else is just a lie, just look at the facts and use you head and it makes sense. Thoose who lie about the resistances' aims do so because they want the foriegn occupation to stay there as long as possible. They know that if the US leave, the Iraqis will take greater control over the economy and not leave it open to outside influence.

Thoose who say but the US removed Sadam, so they should stay, contradict the resistance. The resistance's majority is of people and organisations that were oppressed under Saddam. They too wanted the removal of Sadam, yet they see the US as a occupier, not a liberated. So people who run this arguement are false and have no interest for what the Iraqi people want.

The Iraqi resistance also makes up Non-Violent groups, don't forgot that point as well.

Iraq resistance is a just fight, and it will remove the US forces. There is no evidence that the Iraqi resistance is getting smaller, on the contray that it is growing. It is historical fact that a large occupation of the Western Imperialist will be defeated in battle.

To quote Ho Chi Minh again.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.

You only have to do the math to know the US will be defeated in Iraq.

http://www.albasrah.net/

Long live the Iraqi Resistance!

Long live the Iraqi people!

Long live the international anti Imperialist movement!

 

[Iron]

Well they certainly didnt foresee it turning into what it has. The main cost was to be defeating Saddams defeated army, then the rest was meant to solve itself.
I dont think that it makes sense to be pro or anti war. That time's over. It's a fact that there is a war and it's a fact that it's going to be hard to end. If being anti-war is meant to imply that immediate US withdrawal is the best outcome for everyone, then I bid you good-day (whoever)

edit @nat: Iraqi armed forces have often been targeted and you imply that the US are trying to stay as long as possible?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You only have to do the math to know the US will be defeated in Iraq.

The problem there is that you will see any withdrawal by America as a defeat...

 

[Comrade nathan]

The problem there is that you will see any withdrawal by America as a defeat...

Not true. For instance the US only suffered a military defeat in Vietnam. The succeded in getting back into the country with neo-liberal planing.

In Cuba and the DPRK, the US suffered their greatest defeat. As thoose countries never allowed them to re-enter under neo-liberal economic deals.

So there defeat must be the removal of the US military, cultural, political and economical.

 

[Iron]

The US were never militarily defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam. Iraq, like Vietnam, is a matter of civilian stamina. Public opinion isnt hysterically convinced yet that they need to get out through any means. Most people appreciate the far greater risks of military withdrawal

 

[supercharged]

And why did the US public tire of the war in Vietnam? Because even after years of fighting, they were getting nowhere. It was a quadmire.

It the current chaos in Iraq continued non-stop for another 10 years you can guarantee the the US will pull out of Iraq regardless of the consequences.

 

[Iron]

In light of Vietnam, they appreciate the consequences of withdrawal: huge loss of faith in government and percieved weakness leading to further attacks on Amercia.
Its almost impossible imagining Iraq turning identically into Vietnam. The desporate 'anything that flys on anything that moves' tactics, the absence of immense superpower (or any power) support, the fact that the north/Hanoi was never taken - even though it was attainable, there was possibility for it to evolve into a shooting war with China/ussr, the draft, the divisons it caused at home - unprecedented since the civil war.
What is similar, from what I can tell, is the administration's dismissal of military advice, the war crimes and the resistance's movement between neutral/allied borders throughout the middle-east.

Insurrgencies arent new. Britain defeated the Boers, the Sudanese etc at the height of their power. The precedent of imperial defeat at any resistance is false. They were defeated when they could no longer afford to fight or resist superpower pressure/domestic demands after ww2. Also, it's widely believed that the US could not win Vietnam because they werent allowed to. International law/threat of nuclear exchange with Russia etc. This significant constraint no longer exists.

In Vietam, the public were exposed to the war because western media were free to report it, which ultimatly poisoned public opinion and ended the war. Since then, they've been largely excluded from frontline action. However the internet lets the resistance directly communicate their actions etc to anybody willing to see - reporting demoralising material almost immediatly. This could be the downfall of public opinion. It's a race to get a slap-up Iraqi goverment ready before battle fatigue sets in.

 

[supercharged]

There's more to insurgencies than that, the Soviet Union lost in Afganistan, the French in Algeria etc. They didn't have any constraints to what they could do in terms of lethal force, and they still lost.

 

[Iron]

Yes they did. As I said, the French were too weak after the war. The USSR could arguably not afford to remain in Afghanistan, especially as the CIA were funding Osama et al.

Unless you have great revelations that the resistance is funded by China in their impending bid for world domination, I bid you good day.

 

[loquasagacious]

I think that there is no question as to whther or not there will be a military withdrawal, as to the timing and the manner that is a somewhat different issue. Were they/we to withdraw unconditionally now as Nathan suggests then I believe that they/we would have suffered a grave defeat.

Iraq would be worse off than previously. Most likely a strong-man theocracy would be set up. We would not have reaped any economic benefits. Furthermore the US would have suffered a major blow to international and national prestige.

What is interesting is what strange bedfellows the whola affair has made. For instance Nathan an avowed communist is now aligned with radical religious elements. We see a militant atheist alongside a militant muslim.....

 

[Iron]

Haha.
My mediocre prediction is that it will be the old club-buggery Britain pulled on Africa...
1. Defeat/pacify (whatever) the resistance
2. Get some consensus on independence/unite the various groups in the common goal of having America leave
3. Crap constitution overlooked to achieve 2
4. America leaves on good terms - much celebration on all sides
5. Iraq goes to the shit. Corruption/racial-religious violence turns governments into weak coalitions with little mandate
6. America shakes head at stupid uncivilized gooks - i mean Iraqies and continues to believe in its natural superiority over the world
7. Instability leads to neo-colonial aquisition of oil wealth

 

[loquasagacious]

There were considerable constraints on what the French could do in Algeria, what they did do was enough to bring down the government in France....

Supercharged you also neglect that no guerilla/resistane/insurgency is rarely won by a guerilla force. One of three things happen:

Either the power withdraws because of domestic reasons creating a win by default eg Vietnam,
The guerilla force transforms into an army who wins. For instance the Cuban revolution was finally decided by revolutionaries taking to the field in an organised manner in stolen tanks and defeating loyalist forces in the field,
Or a third power intervenes and defeats the occupier eg, Spain during the Napoleonic wars

 

[supercharged]

Yes they did. As I said, the French were too weak after the war. The USSR could arguably not afford to remain in Afghanistan, especially as the CIA were funding Osama et al.

Unless you have great revelations that the resistance is funded by China in their impending bid for world domination, I bid you good day.

Oh shit you don't have a clue. Go look at the altas, next to Iraq is Iran and Syria. Both these countries are currently being grilled by the US/UN for various reasons ie nuclear program, assasination in Lebanon etc.

If either Iran or Syria were hit by US motivated UN sanctions (or US military strikes for that matter), you can bet your arse that masses of Iranian and Syrian weapons will start entering the conflict in Iraq in retaliation against America.

 

[Iron]

Yes. You certainly have me there. Gee, what was I thunkin

 

[loquasagacious]

Maybe you mean atlas?

How about you look up the CIA world book or one of the Jane's books you will see that neither Syria nor Iran is a great power. Were they hit by military strikes they would have enough to deal with within their own borders. Sanctions would possibly accelerate the flow of supplies and fighters through the porous borders Iron already mentioned.

Yep definantly Iron and I who have no clue.... what is your International Relations background?

Aside to Iron: Were you in Ends of Empire today for Hancocks last lecture?

 

[Iron]

I think you severely misunderestimate the POWER OF SYRIA.

as a reply to an aside: I think my blatant plagarism is testament to my attendance. (Best lecture of the year, possibly)

 

[supercharged]

Do they need to be great powers? Iraqi insurgents are basically fighting with obsolete weapons bought by Iraq before the Gulf war one.

All Iran/Syria need to do to make Iraq a mess from hell would be this: supply MANPAD SAMs, NVGs, modern anti-tank weapons like the Kornet, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, C4 explosive packs and the effectiveness of the insurgents would shoot up 100X.

 

[loquasagacious]

They need to be great powers to make a SUBSTANTIVE difference. Furthermore I severely doubt that either Iran or Syria would provide the support you suggest for financial reasons. Where the US could afford to in Afghanistan and China could in Vietnam Iran and Syria can not.

Continuing aside: Definantly best lecture of the year for me.