The U.S. Occupation of Iraq Through the Eyes of the Iraqi Resistance

[Time for change]

Two of the most salient facts about the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq are the more than one million dead Iraqis and a 2006 World Opinion Poll showing that 91% of Iraqis want the U.S. to withdraw completely and that 61% approve of violent attacks against coalition forces.

These of course are “just statistics” – and it is difficult for the human brain to fully comprehend and process statistics. I am not much different from other people in that respect, even though I’m an epidemiologist who works with statistics as a routine part of my job. Just recently I was reading another book that talked about the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq being responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. Having been exposed to such statements so many times over the past few years, reading it yet again had little emotional effect on me. Then I came to a story about a U.S. attack on an Iraqi civilian settlement that killed a man’s three year old granddaughter – and I gasped in horror, because I have a three year old granddaughter myself. I thought about how I would feel if foreign occupiers murdered her for no apparent reason. In reality the one million-plus Iraqi deaths during the course of the whole war and occupation are more than a million times as horrible as the death of that one little girl. But the human mind just cannot fully process and comprehend the horror of so many deaths. Sometimes we need individual details in order to even begin to comprehend it.

Jurgen Todenhofer is one of the few (if not the only) Western journalists to have interviewed several members of the Iraqi resistance – the people whom the U.S. government routinely refers to as “terrorists”. Contained in those interviews, which are described in Todenhofer’s book, “Why Do you Kill – The Untold Story of the Iraqi Resistance”, are details that could help Americans better understand the scope of the tragedy caused by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. I think it would be a very good thing if all Americans were to read this book, or similar accounts of this tragedy. And as we read about the individual deaths we should try to multiply them in our head by about a million times – an impossible task, but worth at least some effort.

Another set of statistics that is never discussed by the U.S. corporate news media, and is rarely fully mentally processed by people even when they do read it, is the 91% of Iraqis who want the U.S. out of their country, and the 61% who approve of violent attacks against the U.S. military. When you really think about it, what this means is that our war was never against the government of Iraq, or against a few bad apples or “terrorists” in Iraq, as our government is so fond of saying. No. It is against the Iraqi people. If 61% of them approve of violent attacks against the U.S. military, that means that those 61% help the Iraqi resistance fighters whenever they think they can get away with it – or even sometimes when they don’t think they can get away with it. Those civilians are therefore, in an important sense, part of the resistance. And indeed, that is at least part of the reason why our military kills so many of them.


A brief history of U.S. militarism and imperialism

In order to better understand the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, it is important to put it in the context of the American military history that preceded it – because this history shows a distinct pattern. Throughout most of its history the U.S. government has sought manufactured excuses to justify its wars of conquest and imperialism. The settling of much of the North American continent by the United States was characterized by almost a century and a quarter of wars against Native American tribes, along with almost a century of slave labor provided by men, women and children (and their descendents) kidnapped from Africa. This was all rationalized by claiming that our victims were “savages”. Then came a long series of major and minor wars and covert actions instigated by the United States in order to add to its territory, resources, markets, and/or international influence. Here is a brief summary of some of those major wars.

The Mexican-American War – 1846-48
In 1846, President James K. Polk sent U.S. troops into territory disputed with Mexico, between the Nueces and Rio Grand Rivers. The killing of 11 American soldiers by the Mexican Army provided the excuse Polk needed to ask Congress to declare war on Mexico, stating: “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil.” The Result was the 20 month Mexican-American War, resulting in the deaths of nearly 14 thousand American soldiers and 25 thousand Mexican casualties, while adding 1.2 million square miles to the area of the United States, which today comprises much of the southwestern United States.

The Spanish-American War and its sequelae – 1898-1902
On January 25, 1898, President William McKinley dispatched the battleship Maine to Havana, Cuba, to show U.S. “interest” in the Cuban rebellion against Spanish rule. Shortly thereafter, on February 15, the Maine was blown up, killing 250 American sailors. Though the cause of the explosion was never determined, American expansionists blamed it on Spain in order to provide an excuse for war. McKinley, recognizing that successful peace negotiations would preclude the establishment of American control over Cuba and other Spanish possessions, rejected repeated peace overtures from the Spain.

Cuba
Though ostensibly the major rationale for our war against Spain was to “liberate” the Cuban people, a major result of that war was the Platt Amendment of May 22, 1903, according to which, as described by Stephen Kinzer in his book, “Overthrow”, “gave Cubans permission to rule themselves as long as they allowed the United States to veto any decision they made”.

Puerto Rico
Similar events transpired in Puerto Rico. On July 25th, 1998, the U.S. marines landed in Puerto Rico and raised the American flag. The war to “liberate” Puerto Rico lasted eight days and resulted in a mere nine American fatalities. Puerto Rican semi-independence had lasted eight days. Consequently, U.S. sponsored corporations took over most of the country’s best lands, at the expense of the native population, and Puerto Rico remained
an impoverished country with a life expectancy in the 40s for several decades.

The Philippines
What transpired in the Philippines was even more tragic. President McKinley prayed to God for guidance on what to do about the Philippines, and he concluded from God’s response that:

We could not leave them to themselves – they were unfit for self-government… There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them…

In response to their “liberation” by the United States, the Filipinos declared independence on June 12th, 1998. Later they declared war on the U.S. occupiers. A vicious guerilla war ensued, lasting three and a half years, from February 1899 until the middle of 1902. It was characterized by widespread torture, rape, pillage, and the frequent refusal of the American military to make a distinction between civilians and the Filipino military. By the time that the U.S. had “pacified” the Philippines, the dead included 4,374 American soldiers, 16 thousand Filipino guerillas, and 20 thousand Filipino civilians.

Vietnam War – 1954-73
The U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was a double fraud. Proclaimed to be a war to “liberate” the South Vietnamese people from impending Communist domination, the history of events tells a very different story. The Geneva Conference Agreements, which officially ended the war between France and Vietnam in 1954, provided for general elections which were to bring about the unification of Vietnam. However, the United States, fearing a Communist victory in those elections, intervened to prevent the elections from taking place.

On August 2, 1964, President Johnson sent destroyers to the Gulf of Tonkin, probably with the intent of provoking an attack by North Vietnam which could be used as an excuse for war. When no attack occurred by August 4th the U.S. government claimed that a North Vietnamese attack did in fact occur. President Johnson then asked Congress to approve the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which allowed him to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. By the time that U.S. troops withdrew in 1973, paving the way for a Communist victory, two million Vietnamese and 58 thousand Americans had died.

First Gulf War – 1991
By 1990 it had become evident that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was not inclined to be cooperative with U.S. corporate interests. The opportunity to do something about him presented itself when the relationship between Iraq and Kuwait soured. However, Hussein could not invade Iraq without U.S. acquiescence. A Transcript of a meeting in which April Glaspie, then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, gave Hussein a green light to invade Kuwait, demonstrates why he felt free to do so. That invasion gave President George H. W. Bush the excuse he needed to ask Congress for authority to invade Iraq, which it gave him on January 12, 1991. In “State of Darkness – U.S. Complicity in Genocides Since 1945” – David Model describes how President Bush rejected all efforts by Hussein to negotiate a peaceful settlement, prior to the U.S. invasion of January 17, 1991.

Afghanistan War
Two French intelligence analysts, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, offer clues to the reasons for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in their book, '' Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''). They were told by former FBI Deputy Director John O’Neil that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. Julio Godoy summarizes Brisard’s and Dasquie’s book with respect to the background behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan: Confronted with an uncooperative Taliban with respect to U.S. oil interests and plans for the construction of an oil pipeline across central Asia, U.S. representatives told the Taliban “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a copy of bombs”.

Evidence of Osama bin Laden’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks on our country was flimsy at best. Nevertheless, the Taliban agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan – an American ally – to stand trial for charges of participation in 9/11. They agreed that if the court found sufficient evidence that bin Laden would then be extradited to the United States. But George Bush turned down all Taliban offers, saying “We know he’s guilty. Turn him over”. Bush later elaborated further on that, saying “When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations”.


Interviews with Iraqi resistance fighters

Abu Saeed on the prison system in Iraq
Abu Saeed was Jurgen Todenhofer’s host in his efforts to interview Iraqi resistance fighters. He drove him around, introduced him to resistance fighters, and tried as best he could to keep him safe. He was not a resistance fighter himself, though he tried to help the resistance in whatever way he could. He gave Todenhofer information on the American occupation, especially its prison system:

Abu Saeed estimates that up to 40.000 Iraqis are locked away in American prisons. His eldest son, Saeed, who is 18, and his nephew were arrested… for allegedly fighting in the resistance. But neither of them were active in the resistance at the time. First they were thrown into the American jail. They were beaten and kicked… To force a confession, they were not allowed any sleep for days on end. After his stay, Rashid (Abu Saeed’s nephew) immediately joined the resistance. Up to 80,000 Iraqis are being held in Iraqi government prisons, often in overcrowded quarters… They had to take it in turns to lie down and sleep because there was so little room. The sanitary conditions in the prisons are indescribable. The American occupiers hand over resistance fighters they find particularly troublesome to the notorious Iraqi interior ministry… (who) are almost always tortured, and many are killed… In Iraq there are “well over a hundred American and Iraqi Guantanamos”. There are many old or disabled people, and even children… Their life is hell. Women are also often thrown in jail… Many are raped in the American and the Iraqi prisons. Men are raped too. Abu Saeed says he and many of his friends will never forget the words of the highest-ranking jailer, General Geoffrey Miller, who said Iraqi prisoners should be treated “like dogs”…

Abu Saeed says four of his relatives were shot and killed in 2003… An American plane bombed the mosque. The explosion tore his relatives to pieces… Once, after a bomb went off in Baghdad, an imam called for blood donors over the loudspeaker. The Americans responded by sending in helicopters to bomb the mosque and shoot the imam.

Omar
Omar had been fighting in the Iraqi resistance since the beginning of the war. This is what he had to say to Todenhofer:

Omar… lost 10 members of his family, including his oldest son, Mazin, when the American troops invaded. Mazin was nine years old when the American troops shot him… He will never forget the look on the face of his dying son; his eyes were pleading: “Papa, help me. You always help me”. But Omar could not help this time, and Omar’s son bled to death in his arms…

He is disappointed by the coverage of Iraq in the Western media. He is astonished that no distinction is made between the Iraqi resistance to the occupation and the terrorism brought in from abroad that is directed against the civilian population. He also finds it strange that the resistance is criticized for hiding in residential neighborhoods among civilians. Where should they be? The resistance doesn’t have any barracks. Resistance fighters are freedom fighters…. Moreover, in most places the people all support the resistance.

Mohammed
Mohammed was a professor at Baghdad University before he joined the resistance. He tells Todenhofer that:

he joined the resistance “in order to end the humiliation of the Iraqi people”. During their nightly raids, the occupiers so often attack families in their homes and humiliate them. They regularly take away all the men, and sometimes even the women, old people and children, and lock them up in camps for months for no apparent reasons…

The private security contractors financed by the United States… are comprised of more than 100,000 highly paid people, and have enjoyed immunity ever since the invasion in 2003 thanks to a decree by Paul Bremer… The Blackwater Army in particular… is notorious for its ruthlessness and brutality… The Western media almost completely ignore the 100-200 daily acts of violence, the bombings and the raids committed by the U.S. troops. As a rule they only report the one, two or three suicide bombings that occur each day, which are usually perpetrated by foreigners, and then claim they exemplify the violence that prevails within Iraq…

For Mohammed, terrorists are people who kill civilians for political reasons. He therefore considers Al-Qaeda, the deaths squads run by certain politicians, and the U.S. government all to be terrorists. The soldiers of the U.S. government have demonstrably killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, more than Al-Qaeda and all the militias together. “It is against this terrorism that we are fighting,” says Mohammed. He says Saddam Hussein was too harsh a dictator. But the American military dictatorship since the invasion has been much harsher, bloodier and more brutal. “If that is democracy, then you can keep it.” Nobody in Iraq could ever have imagined that in the name of democracy the West would torture, rape, mutilate and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Zaid talks about his brothers
Zaid is one of Abu Saeed’s nephews, and now an active member of the resistance. He was the oldest of three brothers. He explains to Todenhofer why he decided to join the resistance:

On July 4th, 2006, Haroun (Zaid’s brother) sets off from his uncle’s house to go back to his family. He is dribbling a ball… A shot rings out. Haroun sinks to his knees… and falls forward with his face hitting the dust… Nobody dared to go out to see, scared of becoming the American sniper’s next target… Zaid stops talking… His whole body shakes as he sobs….

Weeks and months pass. In early 2007, heavy fighting erupts in Ramadi again. A missile fired from an American helicopter hits right beside the house and destroys a generator that provided electricity to their house. The panic-stricken family runs away from the fighting… They walk to the house of an uncle… They suddenly realize that they had forgotten to turn off the kerosene heaters. Karim (Zaid’s youngest brother) decides he will run back… There is a burst of machine gun fire… Karim collapses, riddled by American bullets… Shrieking with pain and fury, Zaid is determined to go out and fetch the body of his little brother lying in a large pool of blood in the middle of the road… His father holds Zaid back… The whole family is wailing and crying in despair…

Zaid hates violence; he never got into fights at school; but now something snaps inside him. He tells me quietly that after the death of his little brother he realized that it was not enough to just support the resistance passively. He comes to the conclusion that he must do more – like most of his friends. The number of dead in Ramadi is now in the thousands. Almost every family has lost somebody.

“Winter Soldiers” speak out against the Iraq War and occupation

An article in The Nation, titled “Winter Soldiers Speak”, written by Laila Al-Arian, is taken from statements by Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) at the March 2008 Winter Soldier summit in Silver Spring, Maryland. The picture painted by the Iraq veterans coincides closely with Todenhofer’s interviews with Iraqi resistance fighters:

Pfc. Clifton Hicks was given an order. Abu Ghraib had become a "free-fire zone," Hicks was told, and no "friendlies" or civilians remained in the area. "Game on. All weapons free," his captain said. Upon that command, Hicks's unit opened a furious fusillade, firing at people scurrying for cover, at anything that moved. Sent in to survey the damage, Hicks found the area littered with human corpses, including women and children, but he saw no military gear or weapons of any kind near the bodies. In the aftermath of the massacre, Hicks was told that his unit had killed 700-800 "enemy combatants." But he knew the dead were not terrorists or insurgents; they were innocent Iraqis. "I will agree to swear to that till the day I die," he said. "I didn't see one enemy on that operation."

Soldiers and marines at Winter Soldier described the frustration of routinely raiding the wrong homes and arresting the wrong people… "This is not an isolated incident," the testifiers uttered over and over… insisting that the atrocities they committed or witnessed were common….

While the Winter Soldiers offered a searing critique of the military's treatment of civilians, which they described as alternately inhumane and sadistic, they also empathized with fellow soldiers thrust into a chaotic urban theater where the lines between combatants and civilians are blurred. "It's criminal to put such patriotic Americans...in a situation where their morals are at odds with their survival instincts"…

But as much light as was shone on the situation by US veterans, it only begins to scratch the surface of what Iraqis have to put up with:

The Winter Soldier hearings also featured Iraqi testifiers like Salam Talib… Though Talib said he was encouraged to see so many US veterans describing their experiences in frank terms, the testimonies were not much of a revelation for him. "What the American soldiers are talking about is everyday life for Iraqis. They're not even talking about 10 percent of what's happening there" … "They are simply giving credibility to the stories that have been told over and over from Iraq by journalists, Iraqis and humanitarian organizations…

The stories that Talib refers to are the ones that the U.S. corporate news media refuses to cover. To do so would be embarrassing to our country, and what is worse (since the rest of the world already knows about these things) it would cause the American people to turn against the Iraq occupation even more than they already have.


Conclusion

Some may suspect the accuracy of what the Iraqi resistance fighters told Todenhofer in their interviews with him. But the above accounts from Todenhofer’s book, and others like it, are highly consistent with everything we know about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. It is consistent with what the Iraq War veteran ‘winter soldiers’ have to say about it. It is consistent with what human rights organizations have observed. Abu Saeed’s quote of General Miller saying that Iraqis should be “treated like dogs” is similar to how the former U.S. Army chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, Cpt. James Yee, characterized General Miller in his book, “For God and Country”. Most important of all are the scientific epidemiology studies showing hundreds of thousands or over a million Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S. invasion and occupation. With that many Iraqi deaths it would be strange indeed if tragic stories like the ones recounted above couldn’t be found in abundance.

In my opinion there is much difference between the feelings of our current president and his predecessor on this issue. I believe that George W. Bush is a psychopath who took pleasure in the horrors he inflicted on his victims, whereas I believe that Barack Obama is troubled over the situation.

Nevertheless, I think we need to ask ourselves if there is enough of a difference in policy between the two. How much have our monstrous policies towards the civilians of Iraq – and Afghanistan – changed since Barack Obama became president? How many political points is he willing to risk in order to affect significant change in those policies? How much control over the situation does he have? We know, for example that President Kennedy had to exert great effort against his own CIA in order to prevent them from starting a war against Cuba. After he refused three times, under great pressure from his CIA and military, to invade Cuba, the CIA perpetrated their own violent actions against Cuba. Kennedy had to use military force against them to stop them.

It’s a terrible shame that our corporate news media does such a lousy job of informing Americans about their own country’s atrocities. It’s also a terrible shame that President Obama hasn’t done more to inform the American people about this – including calling for investigations and prosecutions against the perpetrators of those horrors. Our government claims that we risk inflaming Iraqi and other foreign opinion against us if we release our secrets, such as those contained in torture photos that President Obama refused to release. That is nonsense. It is not foreign opinion that our government is afraid of inflaming. The whole world outside of our own country already has a very good idea of what we’ve done in Iraq and elsewhere – as clearly shown by Todenhofer’s interviews with Iraqi resistance fighters. It is domestic opinion that our government is afraid of inflaming.

But it should be inflamed – in order to stop or prevent the occurrence of more atrocities. The United States of America is not the country that most Americans have been led to believe it is. It too often deviates too widely from the ideals that it espouses. The sooner that Americans recognize and acknowledge this glaring fact, and do something about it, the better off we will all be.

[Arctic Dave]

1. I've never had aproblem with Iraqis defending their home.

I would do the same and if meant having to kill the occupier by any means necessary then so be it. Flame away but you'll waste your time.

[frog92969]

2. No flames from me

I've always looked at it the same way, and would be kill crazy if we were occupied by Iraq.

[Time for change]

3. I can't fathom how anyone could have a problem with that

without being heavily influenced by racism.

[conturnedpro09]

43. I know too many soldiers and veterans from this war

to be comfortable with a statement like that. I opposed the war from the start, but my support was with them.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. Don't see where

Obama is "troubled" by the continuing occupation. Furthermore is being "troubled" really worthwhile if you don't do anything about it?

Where is your evidence for this "troubled" bit. If he were so troubled would he have not voted against the funding of this troubling situation?

Obama has never had a problem with the US occupation of Iraq but is only concerned about how it is "prosecuted" and how it affects the "image abroad."

Sorry but I've followed this situation in excruciating detail over the last 15 years through the various US political incarnations and on the "troubled" bit you have misrepresented the situation by a long shot.

Still a K&R for folks to read your piece.

Here's Obama's "famous" speech on US policy on Iraq. Read or re-read it carefully. It is extraordinary and appalling. Think about it. What would you do if someone spoke in this manner about the land you lived on?

Way Forward in Iraq Remarks - Chicago Council on Global Affairs:
http://obamaspeeches.com/094-A-Way-Forward-in-Iraq-Obama-Speech.htm

[Time for change]

5. Your points are well taken

I don't claim to have evidence that Obama is troubled by it. I simply stated it as an opinion. Maybe it's just wishful thinking. If I thought a great deal more about it, I think I could say something to back up my opinion on this. But at this time I have nothing more to say about it.

I also suggest in the following paragraph that it's not that important how he feels about it. The important thing is what he does about it. In that regard, I feel that there are a lot of questions we should be asking him. At this time, I don't know the answers to those questions. He may have done some things to improve the situation there that we're not yet aware of. We do know that he put out an executive order banning torture soon after taking office. However, we don't know the full effect of that order yet, though we do know that it hasn't been fully effective.

I greatly admire JFK for his battles against his own CIA and military. Presidents like him are rare. On the other hand, I believe that what happened to him has served as a warning and an example for all the presidents that followed him, which have caused them to tread more carefully than they otherwise would have. I don't believe for a moment that any of them believe that LHO killed Kennedy. I'm not suggesting that we should let that influence what we demand of our elected officials. But at the same time, it is worth thinking about. I think it is quite a dilemma, and I don't know the way out of it.

[BunkerHill24]

6. Excellent post. Thank you

K&R

[Karenina]

7. Book TV interview with Todenhofer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TXA2nhQBrc

[Time for change]

18. What a great interview!

Todenhofer is very courageous -- physically courageous to go into the heart of the fighting in order to report on things that Americans need to know about; and morally courageous to say and write things that are beyond the bounds of what the PTB consider acceptable behavior. He could very well be a target for being suicided.

I love his suggestion in the interview that our elected officials should be required to go to the front lines of a war before making decisions regarding that war.

[G_j]

23. wow

thanks!
:hi:

[Karenina]

68. If you understand German there's a better one on YOUTUBE.

It was on ZDF with Johannes Kerner. I'm SURE I watched a version with subtitles because I played it 3 times and the third time just listened, took notes and looked stuff up. But I can't find it now... :banghead:

[HamdenRice]

8. We know much less about the Iraqi resistance than any other liberation movement in history

That is what is so strange about this whole war. We often saw Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam war, knew all about their position, and even had celebrities travel to North Vietnam.

During the anti-apartheid movement, the ANC had offices in many countries and did a very good job publicizing its positions. I met Johnny Makatini, Thabo Mbeki, Mac Maharaj and other ANC officials at various meetings in the 1980s. They were tireless speakers around the world despite assassination attempts by South Africa.

The PLO also had an extremely public face despite their constant demonization in the mainstream media.

I think the Iraqi resistance made a big mistake by making Iraq too dangerous for foreign reporters -- either that, or the Americans were making it seem to dangerous. (Remember the Iraqi "terrorists" unmasked as British special forces, and the revelation in the American mainstream media that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the Defense Department's biggest "psychological operation"?)

Perhaps the military and political pressure was simply too great for the Iraqi resistance to have an "safe" place or territory from which to communicate to the world, but the effect was that it remains a faceless, and therefore to most irrational, violent movement to most consumers of mainstream news media.

[hack89]

10. Since this "resistance movement" has killed more Iraqis than Americans

and are primarily composed of ex-soldiers and officials from the Saddam regime, it is hard for them to make a moral case for their cause. You certainly cannot make the case they represent the sentiments of the general population. The Iraq people want the Americans gone but they are not supporting the "resistance." They remember what happened the last time those people had power.

[HamdenRice]

11. It's pretty obvious from the OP, they are not all ex soldiers and officials of the Sadam era

To think so is simply counter-factual. For example, there are Shiite militias who are anti-occupation, and they were not part of the regime. The profiles in the OP are all people who were not part of the regime.

Even those who were part of the regime (mostly Sunni) do have a political line. I think it's naive to think that they are killing just for the joy of killing. That makes no logical sense whatsoever, and does not conform to the evidence. That's what both the South African and Rhodesian regimes claimed the resistance was in their countries -- people who killed for the joy of killing, which obviously wasn't true.

If they have a political line, they should communicate it. That said, there are, of course, low level killers for whom resistance and crime merge, as they almost always do in such situations.

I suppose in terms of PR, Moqtada al Sadr does a pretty good job, but his PR is not aimed at an American audience.

[hack89]

14. Sounds like your basic civil war with a criminal element

certainly not a black and white, good vs evil situation.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. What an extraordinarily ignorant response! If what you

wrote were even remotely plausible, then there is no way 61% of Iraqis would support acts of violence against the occupation and its puppet regime.

Or are you going to claim that the 61% figure is wrong? If so, where's your alternate data?

[hack89]

22. Car bombings, kidnapping, murder, and ethnic cleansing

are a part of daily life in Iraq. And it is Iraqis doing it to other Iraqis. It is a fact that can't be denied. The fact that they are resisting occupation does not mean their motives are pure. The fact of the matter is that what is really going on is a bloody civil war that mixes religion, ethnicity, tribalism and crime. It will not change just because we leave.

I think that many want America out so they can impose their own bloody solution.

[coalition_unwilling]

33. If 61% of Iraqis support the

use of violence against the occupation and its puppets, then the Resistance(s) do ipso facto reflect the sentiments of the Iraqi people, thereby giving the lie to the central point of your original post. QED

N.B. Historians of the so-called "American Revolution" estimate that the Resistance to the British enjoyed support levels in the low- to mid 30% range, with roughly equal proportions favoring continued British rule or indifferent to the claims of either side. Makes for an interesting comparison, imho.

[hack89]

47. So, do you think they also support violence against other Iraqis?

judging from the slaughter I would say yes. People have the ability to hate different groups at the same time. Which is central to my main point - the "resistance" is a disparate group motivated by many things - while they may share a common desire for violence against America there is absolutely no reason to believe that they share a common vision of post war Iraq.

Once America leaves the civil war will continue. Very much unlike Viet Nam or South Africa - because they have just as many reasons to kill each other as they do to kill Americans.

[Time for change]

51. There you go again with the "THEY"

as if THEY are all the same.

What would it take to get through to you the point that THEY are different people.

[hack89]

55. That is my point

multiple groups that hate each other for religious, ethnic or tribal reasons. If they were all the same it wouldn't such a mess.

[Time for change]

60. Oh, I get it

Since "THEY" are composed of different religions, that means that "THEY" are a bunch of terrorists who are more interested in killing each other than they are in fighting the foreign invaders who occupy their country. That's your point.

[hack89]

64. No

they are capable of doing both. Saddam Hussein's rule was one where a religious minority maintained order through ruthless oppression of the Sunni and Kurds. There is enough hatred from that alone to ensure centuries of violence - if you don't think that possible go talk to someone from Ireland. The Shia want revenge. The Kurds want a separate country (and revenge). The Sunni are fighting for their very lives. Trust me - killing each other will happen whether we are there or not.

All want America to leave. Just for different reasons. Why is it hard to imagine a Shia militia man fighting Americans in the morning and ethnically cleansing Sunni neighborhoods in the afternoon?

[Time for change]

72. I can imagine that. I know that such people exist.

But that's very different than characterizing the Iraqi resistance as a whole, as you do, as a fight between Iraqis of different sects.

[hack89]

74. But it is the case

the idea that separate to all these hatreds is a group of hearty minutemen unified in their goals and valiantly fighting for liberty is ridiculous.

What they are really fighting for is their right to impose their vision of what a post occupied Iraq will look like. They all know the the Americans will leave soon - they are looking past that now.

[Time for change]

79. Well you certainly do have a concrete idea of what "THEY" want

[hack89]

82. Much better than you do apparently.. Bye. nt

[chrisa]

29. That's an over-simplification.

The majority of Germans also probably supported what Hitler was doing in the 1930s and 40s. The hillarity is that you believe the ambitions of people who blow themselves up near kindergartens and beat women regularly as noble. The US military is not good, in my opinion, but they're angels compared to what they're fighting against.

[coalition_unwilling]

50. The US military is neither "good" nor "evil" but is an

instrument of neo-colonial imperialist policy. In the same way, the Iraqi Resistance is neither noble nor ignoble but is instead the entirely predictable outcome to said imperialism. Brings to mind Mao's aphorism that "all oppression breeds resistance."

Since you bring up the Nazis and German popular support for their policies, you are clearly not interested in a reasoned debate but would rather use false analogies to malign those with whom you disagree. The true analogy is with French, Polish, Russian and Serbian resistance to Nazi occupation. The Nazis called partisans in each of these countries "terrorists," "sub-humans," or "barbarians," nuch as you characterize members of the Iraqi Resistance.

[Time for change]

16. While it is true, as you say, that we know less about the Iraqi resistance movement than so many

other historical resistance movements, I find it very difficult to blame the resistance movement for that. I don't believe that they have much control over that. They were perfecly willing to talk with a Western journalist (Todenhofer) when the opportunity presented itsef. But the good majority of American journalists would not give them the time of day.

I think it is much more likely, as you acknowledge later in your post, that the Americans are much more responsible responsible for making Iraq seem too dangerous to foreign reporters -- and not just seem more dangerous. Iraq is in fact very dangerous for foreign reporters. Consider Sami al-Haj, the cameraman who was thrown into prison and tortured for several months or years because he took incriminating pictures of the results of American violence in Faluja:
http://cpj.org/reports/2006/10/prisoner.php

[hack89]

9. But when Iraqi "freedom fighters" set off car bombs in crowded markets

or in Mosques, one has to question whether fighting the American imperialist is their only motivation.

Let's not forget a basic fact - this "resistance" movement has killed more Iraqis than Americans. Until Saddam's followers give up their fantasy of regaining their absolute power over the Shia, and the Shia give up their desire for revenge, the slaughter will continue regardless of what the Americans do.

[Time for change]

13. You're repeating Neocon talking points here

The Iraqi freedom fighters who Todenhofer interviewed made it clear that they do not approve of violence against civilians.

The ones who do appear to be foreign members of al Qaeda who have used the Iraq War as an excuse to carry on their jihad. And also there are militias run by religious fanatics who engage in violence against civilians.

The U.S. corporate news media reports on the suicide bombings, while utterly failing to comment on the much more common American perpetrated violence -- thereby painting the picture that you describe here.

Todenhofer gives an example of an Iraqi interpreter who worked for the Americans, but whom they decided was expendable. They gave him an assignment to drive into a a market place and call a number on his cell phone. His suspicians caused him to instead park his car in an abandoned lot, and call the number while removed from his car by a hundred yards or so. When he did, the car blew up.

The freedom fighters who Todenhofer interviewed acknolwedge the presence of Islamic terrorists in their country, and they consider them a big problem. But to say that they have deliberately killed just as many innocents in Iraq as the Americans taking it way beyond the available evidence.

The bottom line is: What right does our country have to invade and occupy another country, and then give as an excuse for leaving the claim that violence would continue even if we left? We don't know that at all. It is just a talking point perpetuated by those with an interest in continuing to occupy Iraq, and supported by the U.S. corporate news media.

[hack89]

15. Still does not change the fact about the slaughter

And I didn't say they killed more Iraqis then the American's killed. I said that they seem more preoccupied killing Iraqis than Americans. Low American casualty numbers seem to bear that out.

I agree that America should leave Iraq - I also think that the civil war in Iraq will continue. I don't see these "resistance" fighters as heroes. Once we are gone they will simply set their sights on a new domestic enemy.

[Time for change]

17. You said "this "resistance" movement has killed more Iraqis than Americans"

Perhaps I misinterpreted that statement of yours. Perhaps you meant that the resistance movement has killed more Iraqis than it has killed Americans, rather than that it has killed more Iraqis than the Americans have killed.

Anyhow, your statement that low American casualty numbers seem to bear out that the resistance movement has killed more Iraqis than it has killed Americans is not correct. The only thing that those numbers bear out is that the Americans have far superior fire power to the Iraqis.

You also paint the resistance movement with a very broad brush, making the assumption that all the fighters in Iraq are alike. We all acknowledge that there is an Islamic terrorist component in Iraq. But they are in the minority. By putting "resistance" in quotes and saying that "resistance" fighters are not heroes, you are saying that you don't believe that there is any sincere effort on the part of Iraqis to defend their homeland. I can't imagine why you would believe that. What would Americans do if they were invaded and occupied by a foreign country? Do you think that Iraqis are so much lower on the scale of humanity that they wouldn't defend their country in the same way that Americans would?

I think that your opinion of the Iraqi resistance is very much overly influenced by what you hear from the very biased U.S. corporate news media.

[hack89]

21. I think that many want America out so they can impose their own bloody solution

the fact that they are resisting occupation does not mean their motives are pure. The fact of the matter is that what is really going on is a bloody civil war that mixes religion, ethnicity, tribalism and crime. It will not change just because we leave.

Car bombings, kidnapping, murder, ethnic cleansing are a part of daily life in Iraq. And it is Iraqis doing it to other Iraqis. It is a fact that can't be denied.

I don't get my news from the US corporate news media.

[Time for change]

26. You talk about "they" as if all Iraqis are exactly the same

Is it so difficult for you to imagine that Iraqis, like Americans, are not all exactly the same?

If our country was invaded and occupied, do you not think that that would destabilize our country and let loose criminal elements to run free? If that happened, how would you like it if the world characterized all Americans on the basis of those criminal elements?

Here is a description by one of the resistance fighters, from Todenhofer's book:

There are considerably more Christian resistance fighters in Iraq than Al-Qaeda terrorists. There is no difference between the Chirstian resistance fighters and their moderate Muslim comrades-in-arms. Chirstians and Muslims in Iraq belong together and fight together...

So where do you get your information about the Iraqi resistance from?

[hack89]

28. No - I think exactly the opposite

there are many groups with many motivations. I am sure that some are patriots. Many, however, seem to to be filled with murderous rage that is ideologically or religiously motivated. The Ba'athists, Al Quaeda of Iraq or the Badr Organization are not a bunch of criminals - they are, however, very efficient killers of their own people.

[Time for change]

34. Those groups represent a minority of those fighting in Iraq

Other than this most recent post, all your other posts in this thread lump them all together as if they're all the same. And then you characterize the Iraqi resistance as if it was made up primarily of terrorists who kill their own people.

[hack89]

52. I don't think so.

can you name the largest two or three resistance groups and compare them to the three I listed? The Ba'athist, for example, represent the large remnants of Saddam's army.

[Time for change]

58. They don't go by a specific name other than the Iraqi resistance

What makes you think that most of them approve of violence against their fellow Iraqi civilians? You say that you don't get your information on this from the U.S. corporate news media. Then what source do you have that shows that the Iraqi resistance kills more Iraqis than Americans?

[indepat]

91. Can you or anyone clarify what right, under international law or US law, what

right the US had to invade and occupy Iraq and to continue that occupation until the twelfth of never or whenever? :D





;

[Time for change]

93. You hit the nail on the head

There is NO legal right to do that. And no moral right either.

[conturnedpro09]

45. Excellently stated.

The Iraqi insurgents (I cannot bring myself to call them freedom fighters) earn absolutely no approval from me.

[conscious evolution]

12. Kicking for the freedom fighters.

[chrisa]

25. Some of them are criminals.

No worse than the KKK. There's never a "good" and "bad" side. Their actions (The Iraqi Resistance) in the last 5 years certainly don't deserve a kick.

Many of them are also Al Qaeda, who believe that a man should be able to use a woman as his personal punching bag when he gets angry. Supporting them is the opposite of Progressivism.

[conturnedpro09]

46. Precisely!

Nothing "liberal" about supporting them!

[conscious evolution]

48. The criminals are on our side

We were the ones who started a war of aggression to steal oil.We are the ones who tortured people.We are the ones who sent in death squads.
And most importantly,we are the ones who created al qaeda.

[ro1942]

69. winter soldiers

most americans didn't want to hear what the winter soldiers had to say about our military's behavior. talk about flaming a resistance. great post as usual thanks.

[chrisa]

94. Okay. That still doesn't excuse Al Qaeda + The Iraqi Resistance

To massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians. Death squads? You mean like the ones who film themselves cutting journalists' heads off? That's not us.

I'm not going to defend the US, but even calling Iraqi fundamentalists "Freedom fighters" is ridiculous, considering they're fighting to make their country even more backwards. This is kind of shocking coming from self-proclaimed "Progressives," who admonish the US for killing civilians, yet support a group that is not only Socially backwards, but also has killed 100X the amount of civilians the US has.

The simplistic, "US bad, Iraqi fundamentalists good!" thinking in this thread is kind of scary.

[conscious evolution]

101. the ones who film themselves cutting journalists' heads off?

IMO,the people who were behind that were ours.
Same with the people behind the bombings that set off the sectarian violence between the Sunni's and the Shia's.

Stirring the pot with violence is a tactic that the US has taken many times before in south and central America.Iraq is just the latest in a long line of nations and peoples that have suffered at the hands of people either employed directly by our goverment or trained by our goverment.
Don't believe it? Google "School of the Americas' sometime.

[chrisa]

102. That doesn't make sense.

Considering it would be in the US's best interest for the violence to stop (assuming there's some grand plot to steal oil, as posters have alleged, which is at least plausible).

[conscious evolution]

107. The war in Iraq is not about

the United States best interests.
The war in Iraq is about the military industrial complex's and the petroleum industrys best interests.
In other words this war is about profit.

[Vidar]

19. Thank you for the excellent essay.

[chrisa]

24. Is one side really better than the other?

I think some US soldiers are even worse than members of the Iraqi resistance, and vice versa. There's good and bad people on both sides, being realistic.

[Time for change]

27. Yes. There is an international law that bans aggressive war

That means that it is against international law to invade and occupy other sovereign nations. When a nation does that, those who are responsible for it are war criminals. The only thing that is preventing Bush and Cheney and their co-conspirators from being prosecuted as war criminals, as we prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg, is the concept that "might makes right".

It's hard for me to fathom why anyone would make a moral equivalence between what Bush and Cheney did and Iraqi resistance fighters fighting against the military machine that invaded their country.

What would you be saying if a foreign military invaded and occupied your country, for no reason other than to expand their wealth and power? Is one side really better than the other?

[chrisa]

30. The ones fighting for Al Qaeda are fairly misguided.

Considering what their life will be like after Al Qaeda gets into power. Why are you defending people who execute random, innocent people in the street (Yes, the US military does that too, but I'm not defending them - You, on the other hand, are defending terrorists).

[Time for change]

31. I am not talking about al Qaeda

Al Qaeda represents a small minority of the fighters in Iraq. What on earth gave you the impression I was talking about al Qaeda?

[chrisa]

32. If they topple the government, who comes into power?

It wouldn't be someone secular.

These "freedom fighters" also rape, murder, and torture, and therefore are not worthy of anyone's support.

[Time for change]

35. Your message is clear

All Iraqis are the same. According to you, the Iraqi resistance is made up primarily of terrorists. Where do you get your information from?

[chrisa]

38. They're clearly terrorists.

From their actions. And if you will notice, My first message on this thread says that there's good and bad on both sides. Attacking civilians to spread fear = terrorism.

The US military threatening to bomb villages if terrorists are not given up is also arguably terrorism.

[Time for change]

100. Threatening to bomb villiages? They don't just threaten. They do it. Repeatedly

You say that's arguably terrorism? Why arguably? Because they're Americans?

[chrisa]

103. It's an expression.

Because some people don't think threatening to bomb civilians is bad. I don't care if it's Americans doing it, French, or Iraqis. Calling what they're doing terrorism is not a popular view, which is why is it "arguably" terrorism. I beleive that it is.

[KG]

39. isn't it clear? if they're fighting AMERICANS then they must be terrorists! GO USA! KILL!

[chrisa]

41. Strawman much?

I refuse to call murderers of civilians anything but terrorists. It's not because they're fighting Americans. How could you possibly not believe the Iraqi Resistance is a terrorist organization, when terrorism is their main tactic?

[KG]

42. since i never try to point out the obvious to the willfully obtuse, i'll leave you to your reverie.

[chrisa]

44. Since you can only resort to personal attacks,

I have to assume that you have nothing to offer in opposition to what i said. Somebody has yet to prove me wrong that the Iraqi Resistance is a terrorist organization.

[Time for change]

53. How can you possibly believe that most of the Iraqi resistance kills civilians?

[hack89]

57. Well, someone is setting off car bombs at a fairly frequent rate

Has it ever occurred to you that man has the capability to hate different groups at the same time. Why is it hard to imagine a Shia militia man fighting Americans in the morning and ethnically cleansing Sunni neighborhoods in the afternoon?

[Time for change]

63. Why is it so hard for you to imagine that most Iraqis don't want to be invaded by a foreign power

that despises them, has ruined their country and killed over a million of their fellow citizens?

Does the fact that the war and occupation produced over 4 million refugees give you an idea of what so many Iraqis think of our occupation?

[hack89]

65. I can imagine that very well

I think that we should not have invaded Iraq and I think we should leave. I think that the resistance is fighting America for various reasons and I know for a fact that while they are "resisting" they are also murdering their fellow Iraqis for reasons that have nothing to do with America.

[Time for change]

73. There you go with the "THEY" again

When you make statements like that you are painting the whole resistance with a broad brush that is a gross insult to the majority of Iraqis who are fighting for their country against an invading power.

[hack89]

76. But you are wrong

you can show me a resistance unified in their fight against America. You simply can't. You can't magically hand wave away the religious, ethnic and tribal differences. You simply can't - they are what defined Iraq before the war, they define Iraq now and they will define Iraq well after America is gone.

What they are really fighting for is their right to impose their vision of what a post occupied Iraq will look like. They all know the the Americans will leave soon - they are looking past that now.

[Time for change]

80. Regarding your nearly 100 references to "THEY"

From the DU rules:

"Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements."

[hack89]

81. I am glad to see you maintained your sense of humor throughout this exchange

if you really think I am a bigot I suggest you alert the Admins.

[Time for change]

85. I suggest that you re-read your numerous references to "THEY"

and consider whether the rule I referred to applies.

I don't see what this has to do with my sense of humor. I don't see anything funny about this subject.

[hack89]

95. It does not apply.

The fact I don't glorify the "resistance" like you do is not bigotry. It takes an intolerant mind to make baseless accusations of bigotry simply to "win" an argument - it smacks of bullying to me.

Did you notify the mods?

[Time for change]

96. Yes, I did

I didn't say that to win an argument. I really believe it.

I don't think you mean to do it, but it seems to me that you sweep all Iraqis in the resistance movement together with the same brush, using the fact that some are criminal elements who kill civilians to denigrate them all.

[hack89]

98. Those who kill civilians are not just criminals

their motivation is religious or ideological. There are Shia killing for a theocracy. There are Kurds killing for their own country. There are Sunni killing to regain power. Why can't you accept this basic fact?

[Time for change]

99. I told you numerous times that I accept that basic fact

What I resent is your effort to characteriz the whole Iraqi resistance based on the actions of a few criminal elements. What don't you understand about that?

[hack89]

106. Boy, that went right over your head, didn't it?

my entire point that it is not some criminal element. Your glorious freedom fighters are skillful multi-taskers - they kill for religious and ideological reasons.

Your idea of a unified, patriotic resistance is fantasy - each group is fighting for a different Iraq. An Iraq with no room for the other groups. America is not even the number one enemy.

[Time for change]

97. Delete -- duplicate post

[arikara]

56. So by your logic then

US, Israel and other countries out invading and wiping out civilians are terrorist nations. That works for me.

...I refuse to call murderers of civilians anything but terrorists...

[chrisa]

89. Don't expect me to disagree.

[anonymous171]

59. If they attack civilians, they are terrorists. nt

[conturnedpro09]

84. And how many US soldiers do you know?

Claiming that Iraqi insurgents are better than American troops pushes the envelope unnecessarily far.

[chrisa]

90. I never said they're "better."

That what this thread says, and it's a misinformed statement. I just said that one side is not completely good, and the other not completely bad.

[Pavulon]

36. The million people number is off. Pipeline people are like truthers and birthers

seem to be less concerned about truth. IBC and others are much more accurate reflections. The method used to arrive at that number is not statistically sound.

There is no and never will be a pipeline in Afghanistan. They never turned over OBL.

The current war serves no strategic interest to the US in IRAQ. It costs massive amounts of money and provides no return.

[Time for change]

37. Since you're so sure that the epidemiologic studies conducted to arrive at the estimate of a million

Iraqis killed in the war is "off", why don't you explain how you know that. These were scientific studies.

[Pavulon]

40. No they were non stratified surveys with no verification

that basically asked people if they had a casualty. The percentage from n (a really small n) was applied to the population. Leading to a result that says 1% of the population was dead.

I did not sleep through statistics, and there is plenty of reference material on the method used to gather those results.

Basically I call houses in Greenwich CT (or to skew up camden nj) and ask if a family member has been murdered and use that result to compute a rate for the US. Shit in shit out.

[Time for change]

49. Whether or not you slept through statistics, you have very little understanding of it

You say a really small n? The sample size was 1,499. That's small? There was a statistically calculated confidence interval. Do you know what that means? The LOWER end of the 95% confidence interval was over 700 thousand.

You say that the sample was not stratified. Do you know what that means? The sample was taken from all over Iraq, with the only major areas that were left out being those from the most violent areas, because it was believed too dangerous to go there. Therefore, the end result is likely to be an under-estimate.

Since you believe that there are better sources for this estimate, why don't you say what they are and explain why you think they're better?

[Pavulon]

54. 1500 from 20 million

IBC is the resource used by media outlets. Million man number is not used, because it is bogus.

IBC is an order of magnitude lower than this study. Lots of variance between them.

[Time for change]

61. You don't know the first thing about statistics

The population of the country is not the issue. The sample size of 1500 provided a confidence interval with a lower end above 700 thousand. Do you understand what that means?

You mention the IBC, but you refuse to answer my question about why you consider it a better source of information on the number of Iraqi deaths. Is there any scientific methodology at all used in their estimates?

[Pavulon]

83. Yea counting corpses

is how they get numbers. None are perfect but 1/20th of the entire country dead is insane. The number is not accepted by any real media outlet. Hey you want to hang your hat on an estimation survey of 1500 people knock yourself out.

Million does have a nice ring to it.

[Time for change]

86. Your faith in "real media outlets" is astounding

Our "real media outlets" have done a great job of keeping us informed during the past several years. In case you forgot, all of the "real media outlets" in our country went along with the Bush administration's claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and their ties to al Qaeda that Dick Cheney kept hyping.

And I notice that you haven't been able to explain why you believe any other estimate is superior -- except that they are accepted by "real media outlets".

[Larry Ogg]

62. My first lessons about politics came when I was in my early too mid twenties,

as I had decided to blow the whistle on my employer (to no avail) which happened to be the corrupt corporation that was contracted to run and rip off the tax payer funded City of Phoenix Transit system. And this is not an attempt to change the subject of the OP but rather a reflection of some epiphany I had around the year 1980. The understanding that I learned from the experience of fighting City Hall encompassed a simple question, “If cave man had modern technology, what would the world be like?” The answer was of course and still is reminiscent of the predatory savagery displayed by those who relentlessly pursue positions of wealth, political power and resources, with out consideration or empathy towards those of whom or what they seek to totally dominate. Although I doubt that cavemen were as vicious as their contemporary counter parts i.e. conservatives!

So what I learned in a totally unrelated experience to unjustifiable war is that a certain character type avoids justice by being at the core of injustice, or more simply put, being above the law. I also learned that humans, who are under and suffer the law for the sake of justice, have this incredible capacity to forget the past and to ignore the present; this is for the most part the effect of being uninformed and misinformed while not having a clue. Conditions that we would expect from our ancient ancestors that lived in caves! Right?

So why are the American people so uniformed and misinformed amidst an epoch of information technology; and who benefits from us being kept in a state of Neanderthal awareness; when in the real world innocence is served up for the slaughter on a daily bases in the name of some noble cause? Now it’s obvious that no one can come up with a believable answer to this question, so let me end this cynical paradox of a rant by giving homage to the unelected powers that be (UPTP), their corporately owned conservative biased fraud propaganda fake news and entertainment machine (aka the M$M), and let’s not forget the politicians of whom we would never elect if not for the contributions of their uppity (UPTP) masters; but most of all let’s not forget about the incredible wealth that is stolen from the many so as those who plunder for a living can finance their world empire and - at their pleasure - make cannon fodder and slaves out of whom so ever they choose… And that’s the way it is!

K&R
Larry

[Time for change]

77. Very entertaining rant, with many cogent observations

You note that "No one can come up with a believable answer to this question". That includes me, and not only can't I come up with a believable answer, I can't come up with an answer period. As you well know, Bob Altemeyer provides one of the best explanations available. But even he acknowledges that he lacks the complete answer.

[Cal33]

66. Excellent post., calling a spade a spade. Don't expect

any support from the Republicans, though. They aren't yet adult enough
to be able to show any objectivity.

[Time for change]

78. Thank you

And it seems from this thread that quite a few DUers think a lot like Republicans on this issue.

[AngryAmish]

67. Puerto Rico is part of America and the US did not invade it 11 years ago

You may be off by 100 years.

[Time for change]

75. Yes, I was off by 100 years exactly.

It was a typo. I didn't think that the Spanish-American War lasted a hundred years.

[BlueMTexpat]

70. Thank you for the excellent essay and sources.

If any group illegally invaded my country, stayed to occupy it, also illegally, and killed my children/grandchildren as a result of those illegal actions, then this 60+-year-old grandmother would be doing everything within her power to help the resistance so long as she drew breath.
You can bet your bottom dollar on that.
How I hate that WE are that illegal invader and occupier in Iraq!
There are some responders here who don't seem to get it. Yes, there are some elements, either criminal or foreign ... or even sponsored by the Al-Maliki junta (just where is the criminal Ahmed Chalabi, really good pal to Cheney, these days, btw?) in an effort to turn the population against resistance to their policies, who deliberately harm Iraqi civilians while they purport to fight against the illegal invaders/occupiers. But they are not the true Iraqi resistance.
It is truly enlightening to read some of those responses here, on supposedly "liberal" DU. I had naively always believed that fascism and Nazism could never take over the USA. But that was before the 2000 "selection" and the Bush-Cheney junta nearly succeeded for eight years in turning this country away from all of its ideals. Seeing how some, even here, have clearly drunk the Kool-Aid shows me that we must always be vigilant. Our "democracy" is very fragile indeed.
In my work, I reside abroad most of the year. I know and have personally interviewed individuals who were French "justes" during WWII, even though they were not part of the actual resistance. They were people who took tremendous personal risks by falsifying papers for Jews and Frenchmen who refused to be deported to work for the Nazi war machine. They also took individuals with false papers into their homes and sheltered them there, as well as running networks to smuggle people to safety in Switzerland or Spain, provided they were able to get across the borders without incident. Deportation and death were real consequences for them, if they were not summarily executed on the spot.
While I don't believe that I could ever kill anyone, even someone I hate, I would do everything in my power to make them leave.

[Time for change]

88. Thank you.

I look at this just the way that you do.

I really think that many of the responses on this thread should have been deleted for their bigoted slander of the Iraqi resistance -- equating it with the worst criminal elements in Iraq, as if all Iraqis who fight Americans are exactly the same. That is the worst kind of bigotry in my opinion, especially given that we invaded their country for no good reason whatsoever.

[BlueMTexpat]

71. Deleted ... Dupe. Hit the button twice!

[malaise]

87. Excellent post

Thanks. K & R

[chrisa]

92. Nothing is "excellent" about it.

Praising a bunch of fundamentalists who want to torture their own populace? What visionaries. So much better than the Iraqi government now.

:sarcasm:

[hack89]

104. Do you consider Iraqi Kurds traitors?

they not only welcomed the US military, the peshmerga fought Saddam's armies along side the US army.

[hack89]

105. Do you consider Iraqi security forces that are fighting the resistance traitors? nt