Philzone.org Discussion Board: Archive 2004: Politics Archive 2004: An insurgent's words.

great report about view from the other side.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6623180/

Kinda makes you think, if this country were invaded on gounds of shakey intelligence, what would the men and boys do to see that hearth and home were safe? Be careful how you answer, you might just run into the reason an "insurgent" fights in Iraq.

Well, i'll give one reason. The election. It is a violation of all international laws. According to ALL international laws regulating the relationship between occupier and occupied, the US does not have the authority to instigate a change in Iraq's country's social, economic and political structure via an imposed election. That is something any American would fight against, of this i am sure.

And before we ever installed an interim govenemtn Paul Bremmer voided parts of the Iraqi constitution that prohibitted foreign investment in Iraqi national resources.

It should be noted that all candidates were those who assisted the US invasion and collaborated with the Americans to consolidate the occupation. Even after elections are held, the decision-making process will be carried out mainly by the US, therefore negating any legitimacy to Iraqi sovereignty. Unless the elected officials have the right to kick US forces out of Iraq, the elections will be bunk. Also, it is impossible to hold elections in a war zone.
If the US truly cared about a domcratized Iraq, then they would have spent a lot more time and money building the required civil institutionalization that must come alongside democracy.

The US wants a puppet government in Iraq and will not allow anything else. This isn't democracy it is imperialism.

agreed

what "chilled" me most perhaps was the report of "legends" that are arising about thier fighters......this will last generations.

There was a reason George the 1st didnt invade Iraq...no exit strategy. We are in for a long, long hard slog, or a messy pullout.

the real hope for the mideast ended with the occupation by the Mongols hundreds of years ago with thier ever lasting legacy of heavy-handed govt. the Ottomans were the closest thing they've had to stability in hundreds of years, at least they were tolerant to all religions. the common people are simply used to authoritarian govt.