Questions about semantics

[KatarinaZ]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[KatarinaZ]

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.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

You have no idea what the US military is doing.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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.

 

[KatarinaZ]

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.

 

[dmp]

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.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

I think they call that "common sense."

 

[dilloduck]

I think they call that "common sense."

You would think so but somewhere along the line the enemies that would destroy America seem to have forgotten that. We have put up with too much shit and look weak.

 

[Gunny]

You would think so but somewhere along the line the enemies that would destroy America seem to have forgotten that. We have put up with too much shit and look weak.

ITA, and NOBODY hates us looking weak more than I. This crap is just escalating and it's about time someone put some boots up some asses before we give away our tactical advantage.

 

[Gem]

Kat,

Ignoring, for now, the fact that many of the insurgents in Iraq are Iranians, Syrians and Lebanese. Why are the "freedom fighter" firing mainly at their own "brothers and sisters?"

There was another incident today of gunmen firing into an open-air market killing innocent Iraqis. THAT is what you consider acceptable for men and women doing nothing but fighting for the "freedom" of their nation?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, that people have the right to fight for their nation and their freedom. But I disagree that this is what these people are doing. If they were, they would be doing everything in their power to attack the military only...they would be trying VERY hard to AVOID civilian casualties. Instead, they are targeting innocents, they are targeting Iraqi citizens.

There are a few reasons why they might be doing this. 1) They know their adversary well. They know that the media will show this and this will weaken our resolve to help the Iraqi people set up a new government. We will run away and leave Iraq to the hands of the very people who would kill their own citizens to regain power. We would leave Iraq in the hands of madmen, once again. And we would prove to people all over the world that when we say we are going to help you get your country back from the hands of despots and help you set up your own government and make your nation what you want it to be...we are lying. 2) They are hoping that if they kill enough Iraqis...the Iraqi people will give up on the new government that the showed up in droves to elect...and will desperately shove the US out in hopes that their markets and schools and restaurants will not be subject to any more horrific violence at the hands of "freedom fighters." They are hoping that the Iraqi people will give up and surrender their freedom to stop the terroristic attacks against them.

Either way...your so-called "freedom fighters," think that it is perfectly reasonably procedure to kill innocent women and children, not as the occassional, accidental victims of war...but as deliberate targets to aacomplish their goals.

You can not be a "freedom fighter," if you think that deliberatly planning out attacks, targeting and shooting children and innocent adults to get the other side to go home is an acceptable tactic. That makes you a terrorist.

 

[dilloduck]

ITA, and NOBODY hates us looking weak more than I. This crap is just escalating and it's about time someone put some boots up some asses before we give away our tactical advantage.

Amen--I see no hurry in jumping in to enforce a truce here. Let Israel fight and Hezbollah try to fight back. ( If the UN sends in a "peacekeeping force" I hope that every last one of them is French )

 

[manu1959]

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.

i agree they are fighting for freedom from the american opressors and a return to the rule of saddam

 

[Semper Fi]

I believe all nations of the world should have the right to decide their fate.

I'm trying to figure out how anyone can think that way. Imagine if the US was a country of totalitarian oppression. I could make you my slave, make you eat crap, make you jump out of trees and squawk around like a chicken. I could torture you. I could stick needles under your finger nails, cut holes in your limbs and fill them with salt and leave you in a swamp to sleep. But hey, it's our nations right to decide our fate. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

See where I'm going with this? You would probably be hoping and praying for some sort of liberation? If you can read that and not think twice about whether Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified, then good luck with you in life.