Support NeoGAF

[Azih]

The problem is that saying the reason that insurgents are attacking is to stop the elections is incorrect. The reason the insurgents are attacking is because they don't like the coalition or the coalition appointed interim government. They are *not* the same thing.

That is EXACTLY the insurgents' goal -- to prevent the elections from happening.

This kind of thinking is wrong plain and simple. The insurgents goal is to either 1) hurt America, the west any way they can (Al-Qaedaish mentality) 2) Get the coaltion and the puppet interim the HELL OUT (Sunni insurgency) 3) combo of the above two.

If you don't get the motivation right then you're not getting the correct view of the situation.

The election is incidental.

I will not fight any invading power that removes him and says it will hold elections. I will gladly take the chance on elections.

That's fine Guiliess good for you for not being an insurgent in that scenario, but what about the old elite in Texas that benefitted enormously under Bush's tyrranical regime, how would they be acting after the U.N force invaded to oust Bush the dictator? And what about the rednecks who just irrationally hate the U.N and shoot at every black helicopter, what would they be doing?

 

[Saturnman]

If George Bush is still in power 40 years from now and has crafted an Orwellian police state to perpetuate his power, filled mass graves with his political opponents, and started ruinous wars with Canada and Mexico, I will not fight any invading power that removes him and says it will hold elections. I will gladly take the chance on elections.

Complete BS and self-serving.

A people only accept a foreign army when they liberate them from another foreign army. Then it's the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Otherwise, invading a sovereign nation will always trigger nationalism and suspicion about the foreign power' intentions because they can only be there for their benefit, not yours. There's ample historical proof for that and if your nation has something the foreign army would like to have then it only confirms it. Ultimately, a people will choose to be screwed by one of their own instead of a foreigner.

I mean, really, would you like to be invaded by China, India or Pakistan? No matter how bad things would be before they came in, why on Earth would you be stupid enough to trust them?

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

well!! those desperate insurgents and their daily attacks whenever they want sure are reaking havok. i'm sure that the weak and inneffective iraqi interim govt will stop those people once the elections are done with. by the way, the jan 30 elections? are iraqis voting for a president or for a parliament?what exactly are they voting on?

 

[Firest0rm]

well!! those desperate insurgents and their daily attacks whenever they want sure are reaking havok. i'm sure that the weak and inneffective iraqi interim govt will stop those people once the elections are done with. by the way, the jan 30 elections? are iraqis voting for a president or for a parliament?what exactly are they voting on?

We're voting on the 275 seats. We vote on the parties that we want, who get seats according to the number of votes they get. These 275 individuals will then be responsible for writing the constitution.

 

[Guileless]

I mean, really, would you like to be invaded by China, India or Pakistan? No matter how bad things would be before they came in, why on Earth would you be stupid enough to trust them?

No, I wouldn't like it, and I wouldn't absolutely trust them. However, I would at least give the benefit of the doubt to the nation that--after waging total war to destroy their governments-- rebuilt Germany and Japan and ensured their continued prosperity through free markets, the rule of law, and consensual government. And, not to mention, benefited in the long run from their prosperity.

The problem is that saying the reason that insurgents are attacking is to stop the elections is incorrect. The reason the insurgents are attacking is because they don't like the coalition or the coalition appointed interim government. They are *not* the same thing

I know you can torture out a semantic difference. You said there were "important differences." What are they, and what is the significance of the differences? I still don't see it--they don't want the new government to succeed, and so they are opposing the new government's principal claim to legitimacy-- elections. And they explicity stated 2 days ago, in a press release for public consumption, that they want to stop the elections because democracy was apostasy. What are we to conclude from that statement, other than their attacks are designed to stop the elections?

 

[Saturnman]

No, I wouldn't like it, and I wouldn't absolutely trust them. However, I would at least give the benefit of the doubt to the nation that--after waging total war to destroy their governments-- rebuilt Germany and Japan and ensured their continued prosperity through free markets, the rule of law, and consensual government. And, not to mention, benefited in the long run from their prosperity.

Latin American, Africa and most of the Middle East didn't have the same experience with the US and the West.

If I were Iranian, I'd have no reason to trust the marching armies of the US. Iraq's history is more ambiguous with the US, but with Britain part of the coalition, everything becomes simpler.

 

[Phoenix]

The goal of the insurgency isn't to keep the country unstable, it isn't to prevent elections, it isn't to prevent freedom, etc. Rebellions, insurgencies, etc. don't have clean well-defined reasons for happening usually because not everyone is part of some unified organization sitting with a 'revolution handbook'.

The people who assassinated the governor may not even know the people blowing holes in the pipeline and may not even be associated with the people kidnapping people in the cities.

 

[Guileless]

with Britain part of the coalition, everything becomes simpler.

How's that?

 

[Saturnman]

How's that?

They're the former colonial masters of the Iraqis. They too had to suffer a brutal insurgency that cost thousands of lives on their side, to be finally driven off. Their return to the territory and the sheer guile of having them running the show (in their controlled part of the country) must be a blow to the locals.

Knowing history helps, Guileless.

 

[Guileless]

I'm familiar with the short period of British rule in Mesopotamia after WWI. Iraq's Western colonial history amounts to barely a one year occupation after British forces drove out the Ottomans in WWI. Is that why people are committing suicide?

 

[Saturnman]

I wouldn't say it's the only reason, but the Brits and the Americans have a long history in the region. If they weren't there with troops, their oil companies were there in their place with a convenient puppet government. Britain's decade-long hold of Kuwait, a territory Iraq long claimed to be its own, was also a constant reminder.

People who blow themselves up are either Iraqi nationalists or Muslims from other countries wanting to fight their mortal enemy: America.

 

[Socreges]

The election in January will not be "democratic" obviously. But it will be a baby step. Hopefully insurgency attacks slow down afterwards.

I strongly believe that America has fucked up. As Cheney said during/after the first Gulf War, "an occupation would be impossible" (something to that effect). At the time he may have only been justifying the abandonment of the Kurds/Shiites that Bush encouraged to rise up, but it might just be the truth. Now, however, they can't leave. They have a huge responsibility and, I believe, must occupy Iraq until they can trust that an independent, stable, and relatively peaceful state has been created. Can't be sure that it will ever happen, but they've got no choice but to continue.

 

[cvxfreak]

Oh man, this is not good.

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

http://www.canada.com/national/nati...d=fa274c03-726b-413e-a3b1-1dca5e5c821a&page=1

BAGHDAD - The Islamic Army in Iraq, one of the main armed groups fighting U.S. forces in the war-torn country, has threatened to carry out attacks inside the United States, according to a statement posted on a Web site yesterday.

This year "will bring woes on America. The mujahedeen [holy warriors] have prepared big surprises for your sons outside America and a big surprise for you inside America," said the statement, the authenticity of which could not be confirmed.

The statement appeared to mark a disturbing shift in strategy by the shadowy Sunni Muslim group that has claimed a number of attacks and killings of hostages in Iraq, including an Italian journalist and two Pakistanis.

The mujahedeen "will take the battle from inside our country [Iraq] to yours," the statement said.

"We address you after you finished celebrating the new year, hoping that you are no longer drunk.... We will give American civilians a taste of what civilians in our country go through," said the statement, presented as a "message to the American people." (...)

 

[Azih]

I know you can torture out a semantic difference. You said there were "important differences." What are they, and what is the significance of the differences?

One of the most important differences has been stated time and again in this thread. The attacks will continue after the elections are held, because the elections aren't the target, the coalition is. Attacks are ramping up because the elections are important *for the coalition*, the attacks will keep on happening after the elections and will ramp up again for any other event that is important to the coalition.

The most important problem with the

That is EXACTLY the insurgents' goal -- to prevent the elections from happening.

line of thought is that it obscures these facts. There will be a tendency to claim victory when the elections finally chug to their end because "They didn't want the elections to happen, but we pulled it off, HELL YEAH", but that sentiment will be just as false as Bush declaring major combat operations over after the occupation was complete. And *that* is because the insurgents, the people America is fighting against, don't see it that way at all. They'll just have more targets to attack to give the coalition a black eye which is their real objective, not preventing elections.

 

[Guileless]

Azih we're talking past each other here. I agree with you that the insurgents' goal is to attack the new government, whether or not elections are held. My point is that in that effort they are trying to stop the elections, because an elected government will be more legitimate, and this could translate into more acceptance by the population at large and hurt the insurgents' support.

The mere fact that elections will be held is no panacea--you are correct about that. I'm talking about the long-term implications of an elected government and its effect on the insurgents' cause. And you cannot simply dismiss their PR statement as "talking points." They really believe that democracy is apostasy. They don't want elections held. It's as simple as that, and it's not GOP spin.

 

[Azih]

Azih we're talking past each other here. I agree with you that the insurgents' goal is to attack the new government, whether or not elections are held. My point is that in that effort they are trying to stop the elections, because an elected government will be more legitimate, and this could translate into more acceptance by the population at large and hurt the insurgents' support.

Not particularly, the people who support the insurgents would support them in the aftermath of an election as well. Despite what Che thinks and what firestorm proves is that there is already a lot of support for the elections. The insurgents don't have the support of the majority of Iraqis now(who just want peace, as security being a primary concern in that survey showed), the support that they do already have is enough for them to operate and that support isn't likely to diminish in the face of an election.

Also the insurgents goal is to attack the coalition not 'the new government'. The interim body isn't a government in any real sense.

The mere fact that elections will be held is no panacea--you are correct about that. I'm talking about the long-term implications of an elected government and its effect on the insurgents' cause. And you cannot simply dismiss their PR statement as "talking points." They really believe that democracy is apostasy. They don't want elections held. It's as simple as that, and it's not GOP spin.

Never said it was GOP spin, it is however insurgent spin. They'll justify their attacks any old how and Islam is a very convinient tool for doing so. Once again, the elections are somewhat incidental. Sure the insurgents would love to prevent elections as this would be a crippling blow to the coalition, but they'll be perfectly satisifed with disrupting them heavily as this would damage the coalition's credibility. The goal is simply to hurt the coalition. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course the insurgents will view any government elected via an election under coalition authority as a mere coalition puppet as well. That will be the justification if and when the elections finally conclude.

See if the coalition left tomorrow (election undone), then the insurgents who just want to hurt America will stop the attacks, their job is done, they had easy targets they attacked them, the easy targets are now gone. The insurgents who had it good under Saddam will turn their attacks more heavily on Kurdish and Shiite Iraqis either to try to get back all the power they had under Saddam (pipe dream) or just out of spite (never underestimate spite).