Questions about semantics

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by KatarinaZ, Jul 17, 2006.

  1. KatarinaZ
    Offline

    KatarinaZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    I have huge problem with labeling the Iraqi people as "insurgents." I view them as the actual "freedom fighters."
    When Iraq invaded Kuwait, those who fought against the dictator Saddam were freedom fighters. But when America invades Iraq, how is it that the invaders are now "freedom fighters" and those who resist are "insurgents?" Obviously, the terms are reversed.
     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    What "freedom" are they fighting for? All I see are different factions of Islamic extremists waging war against their own noncombatant population to force their own particular brands of totalitarian theocracies on the people.

    Your "semantics" are defined by cause.
     
  3. KatarinaZ
    Offline

    KatarinaZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    What do you think the American military is doing? They are shooting at anyone who moves. The extremists are fighting a turf war. This has always been the case in this part of the Middle East.
    The Americans are fighting a war of aggression. They conquered a country that did not wish to be conquered. Now they are occupying a country that does not wish to be occupied. All of this as a result of typically poor judgement by Mr. Bush and his advisers.
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    You have no idea what the US military is doing.
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The US military is not shooting at anything that moves, and there is no war of aggression. If it was a war of aggression, there would be intent to stay and subjugate the people; which, there is not.

    The US military is occupying Iran until the democratically elected government of Iraq can sustain itself against the terrorists you call "freedom fighters."

    The poorer judgement was displayed by Saddam Hussein. All he had to do to avoid being deposed was honor the agreement HE signed.
     
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Additionally---If Americans shot everything that moved in Iraq, they would all be dead by now. All I see now is Iraqis killing each other because of tribal mentality and religious squabbles.
     
  7. KatarinaZ
    Offline

    KatarinaZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    There are a great many terrorist nations in the world. It is not a perfect place. I believe all nations of the world should have the right to decide their fate. The United States had no right to intervene in the Middle East. How the respective countries operate should be decided in that area, not by an international police state.
    I am not saying that Saddam Hussein was a good person. He was a despot. Every country in the Middle East is run by force, including Saudi Arabia and Israel. The United States should not be able to pick and choose the countries that it wishes to control.
    Mr. Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq makes him the equal of Saddam Hussein. When Hussein tried to occupy Kuwait, he was repelled. Why was Mr. Bush allowed to invade Iraq? I see them as similar actions.
     
  8. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741

    How old are you? You're naive, sweetheart. There are countless threads on this very topic - Please try to educate yourself before stirring up shit.
     
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Here's the moral of the story---"fighters" who attack should expect to be retaliated against. If you attack a stronger force you can expect a stronger retaliation. If you throw one rock, it is likely that 100 rocks will be thrown back at you. If you think that is not fair, then you should not attack in the first place.
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The United States has EVERY right to intervene in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein invaded a Nation that was and is a US ally by treaty. An attack on our allies is considered an attack on the US.

    Saddam Hussein was repelled by US military force, and HE agreed to a ceasefire providing HE met certain terms; which, he continuously violated in a rather gradiose, in-your-face manner. The US's part of the agreement left open the resumption of hostilities if Saddam did not meet the terms of the agreement. He did not. Rather elementary.
     

Share This Page