Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has anyone ever asked; what do the Iraq insurgents want?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
thebaghwan Donating Member (998 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 02:15 AM
Original message
Has anyone ever asked; what do the Iraq insurgents want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Instability
By keeping Iraq unstable, each faction of "insurgents" maintains their chance to take over when the US is eventually driven out. If they are stopped, and the US government becomes entrenched, it's harder for these groups to take over.

That's what the planners want. Probably 90% of the actual "insurgents" just hate the US, and want to strike at us any way they can. People who have lost loved ones, people who's normal lives were shattered by our invasion, people who truly want freedom and representative government rather than the sham "democracy" our troops are maintaining... There are a lot of people willing to die to hurt us, since we have hurt them. Rage and righteous indignation aren't that hard to understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. They want us to LEAVE.
That's what they want.

WE are in THEIR country.

They want us to get out.

Insurgency - -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. AMEN!!! Leave.........................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. They certainly want us not to gain control of Iraq's oil to be sure
and they want no US. presence in the middle east, but that's too late , we've already built 9 different bases there already under the pretense that we would turn them over to the Iraqi's once the war became stabilized? -- uh-huh! yeah, R-i-i-h-t!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. Exactly. Why do you refer to the Iraqis as insurgents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. If a foreign country invaded us
Everyone would want them to leave.

It's not hard to figure out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. This is a good topic for a thread... "If a foreign country invaded us".
What would we do....

Hell... if we were told by Iraq that they didn't mind if we took Mexico... then ripped the crap out of us in order to get us to give it back... if they strafed our troops retreating across Texas, if they took out our electrical and water infrastructures, sanctioned us, continually bombed us, didn't allow us to fly over Mississippi or Michigan, sent weapons inspectors all over our land (at which point the entire world might be inclined to remove our WMD's), yup, if a foreign country invaded us in order to restore our former democratic system, there would be hell to pay.... and we would be 100% justified don't you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oblivious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. And what would we do to collaborators?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. We'd probably have the traditional view of
collaborator.

Traffic cops wouldn't be high on the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTwentyoNine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. And... when we fought back their newspapers could call us terrorists...
Edited on Sun Jun-19-05 07:33 AM by OneTwentyoNine
The way WhoreTV and other media outlets did. I guess if fighting for you country against invaders makes you a terrorist then Americans have been terrorist for over 200 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
necso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. It's not like we're fighting the
NVA and the VC in Vietnam. Those responsible for the violence in Iraq are much more disparate and heterogeneous, and lack leadership as coherent and centralized.

Which are some of the reasons that the prognosis for the ongoing constitutional process is less than hopeful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. They're scared
And who can blame them? They've seen what U.S. military adventures have done in other places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfkrfk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
8. they want to be on the winning side of the gang war
they want to be the only living gangsters when
there is a return to '''normal''' self-government.

Civilians are expendable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
10. Some of the answers here are disturbing
Edited on Sun Jun-19-05 08:56 AM by Tom Rinaldo
The "insurgents" are not one single group motivated by love of country and the good of all Iraq. There are numerous strands, goals and grievances. It is NOT only about getting the U.S. out of Iraq. A lot of it is about who will get to hold power in Iraq. Some of it is about very old fissures within Iraq. Some of it is about extreme fundamentalist religion and the efforts by some in the region to create a strict Islamic State in Iraq as a model for how they want to see the entire Muslim world. Yes some of it is about wanting Americans out of their country. Sometimes it is a strong Nationalist position, other times people have turned against the U.S. after being more open initially, because they blame the U.S. for the deterioration of security in Iraq.

But the insurgents, whatever their issues, do not speak for all of Iraq. Kurds have lived in Iraq for hundreds of years also, and they are predominantly pro U.S. involvement. For over a decade after Dessert Storm, with U.S. protection, they operated their own mini state in northern Iraq. Hussein gassed and killed tens of thousands of Kurds under his rule. The Kurds welcomed the U.S. into Iraq.

The Shiites are more complex. Shiites make up the majority of Iraq citizens yet they were always second class citizens and oppressed by elements of the Sunni minority from which Hussein came. By most accounts Grand Ayatollah Sistani is the most revered and trusted figure in Iraq, and he has played a nuanced role vis a vis the American occupation. He is NOT an insurgent. His Lieutenants work closely with the current Iraq government and the U.S. forces there. He wants the U.S. out of Iraq but he wants a careful withdrawal after the Iraq government is strong enough to protect the interests of the Shiite majority.

Many Sunnis are afraid that the tables will be turned against them in a new Iraq with themselves becoming the new oppressed minority. Their fears have some basis in reality. Hussein favored the Sunnis. Some Sunnis seem to be fighting to increase their bargaining power with the new Iraq government, in essence saying you will never have Peace if you treat us unfairly. Many Sunnis were members of Hussein's Baath Party, some only because they had to be in order to get work, others because it allowed them to share in the spoils under Hussein. The current Iraq government is opposed to allowing middle and top level former Baath Party members from regaining any positions of influence in the "new Iraq". That "grievance" has nothing currently to do with the Americans who are more flexible now in that regard than the Iraq government.

Secular Iraqi citizens, of which there are many, generally do not support the Islamist elements of the insurgency, they fear it. There is also a significant small Christian minority in Iraq who also fear the Islamists. Hard core Baathists, of which there were tens if not hundreds of thousands in pre invasion Iraq, tend to be seculist also and since they ran Iraq before they possess many technical skills and specialized areas of knowledge. They look for an at least partial return to power if enough chaos in Iraq makes enough people in Iraq long for the bad old days under Hussein when if you kept your moth shut and accepted your lot in life you probably would not die a violent death.

I am disturbed by the tendency by some at DU to romanticize the Iraq insurgents simply it seems because they are resisting Bush's invasion. I have sympathy for some of them, while others of them are as despicable as Hitler's Nazi's in my opinion. We at DU get rightfully upset when the U.S. allows for the humiliation and torture of prisoners. Yet some of the same people who are up in arms about that seem unbothered that major elements of the insurgency in Iraq conduct suicide bombings daily in Mosques, at funerals, in markets and elsewhere where civilians are certain to be killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Your points:
Hussein gassed and killed tens of thousands of Kurds under his rule

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9045.ht...



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



the tendency by some at DU to romanticize the Iraq insurgents
Romanticize? If anyone came here and killed any member of my family... they would pay dearly until I was in the ground... believe it.


There is also a significant small Christian minority in Iraq

Were Christians the target of ANYONE whilst the former regime was in power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Your points
I don't have time to play dueling news sources with you. I did not make sweeping claims about the Kurds involving hundreds of thousands of deaths, but I have seen and read enough evidence to convince me that Hussein did order the gassing of Kurdish villages. My main point was simply that most of the Kurds are not opposed to the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

People all over the world seek revenge when loved ones are killed. So? I grant you that I did not specifically say that loss of life directly related to U.S. actions in Iraq feeds anti U.S. sentiments in Iraq. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps should have noted it. The same is true when Sunnis kill Shiites or Shiites kill Sunnis or person from tribe A kills person from tribe B or vice versa. Americans are not the only ones now doing killing in Iraq. The revenge cycle is growing in multiple directions.

The question of this thread was about what the Insurgents wanted. My points were that there are differing insurgents and I said I had sympathy for some and deplored others. I stand by that statement. This was not a "was it right for the U.S. to invade Iraq?" thread. Nor was the question about whether U.S. forces were or are stabilizing or destabilizing forces, or whether it is better to leave now, later, or never. Most people felt safer in pre invasion Iraq, Christians included. I made a glancing note of that. If all the Americans left Iraq tomorrow Iraq would not simply revert back to pre invasion Iraq. That simply is a fact. So what does it matter now to say that Christians were safe in pre Invasion Iraq? Yes that is another of the tens of powerful arguments about why the U.S. should never have invaded Iraq, but that wasn't what this thread was about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. Some if not many of them want what Mel Gibson wanted in
that movie about the War of Independance, independance, self-determinism, control of their own economy, and perhaps a little revenge mixed in.

Dueling news sources be damned, real news sources are few and far between.....

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
----------

Samuel P. Huntington

If you ain't prepared to do it right.... or if you just don't give a crap about what comes in the aftermath... then don't do it at all... especially if it is a completely illegal move built on fabrications and fluff.

Take it from someone who lives there.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,966819,00.h...

>>But, again like most, he is bitter about the looting and lawlessness which for the past six weeks have gripped Baghdad. "The Americans are not taking control of the situation and stopping it. There is no way they could wash their hands clean of it," he says. "Two months like this is too much, three months is a disaster."

Electricity is still intermittent at best, government is a long way from restored. Most ministries are gutted, some of them are still smoking. What message does it send to frustrated Iraqis that only the oil ministry has been protected by US troops? Already some are talking of Saddam's era as the good days, Salam says.

The former dictator and his two loathed sons are still on the run. The weapons of mass destruction, the fragile premise on which the war was based, have been not been found. Now some hardline Shia clerics are becoming increasingly fractious, taking advantage of the power vacuum and threatening to ban alcohol, cinema and prostitution on pain of execution. The Baghdad blogger may still have the most important chapters of his diary left to write.<<
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. You have expressed a reasonable explanation for the situation....
i can see that you have researched this, and have come to conclusions based on facts rather than emotions.

Kudos to you!

The situation is far more complex than anyone would like us to believe, and still we get the jingoistic, "they hate us because of our freedoms" from bush, et al.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. what's the difference between "insurgents" cutting a head off and the
US. dropping a 500 lb. bomb killing innocent civilians under the guise of "collateral damage" from a war that appears to be illegal to start with.

Memos show British fretting over Iraq war:

When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing,"For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOWNING_STREET_M...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. It's not a matter of romanticising them
but rather a matter of being realistic, in that we recognize that until we leave, there will be a (somehwat loosely) unifying sentiment that the US needs to get out. And there is certainly frustration on my end by the media labeling everyone who wants us to get out as "an insurgent." I can see how the media is using a broad brush to paint them all as "insurgents," and as a generic label, I think it's useless.

I find the label itself to be offensive, because - regardless if I'm a treehugging liberal or a neocon fundie, or something inbetween, if a country invaded us, I would support efforts to remove them. That doesn't mean if they left I'd be sending flowers to Phelps on a daily basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Broad brushes seldom work well
Not in describing the opposition in Iraq nor in describing the feelings of DU posters. I agree with most if not all of what you said. If I were French in 1944 I probably would have supported American forces landing in Normandy, and a hell of a lot of Rwandans would have supported American forces "invading" to stop the genocide there also,. Many Haitians wanted the U.S. to invade Haiti to restore Aristide at one point also, but I am NOT equating those situations with Bush going into Iraq, just saying that black and white statements are inherently problematic.

I honestly do think that there is a tendency by some here to "romanticize" elements of the Iraq opposition which in any context other than opposition to an American invasion we would strongly condemn for behaving with no greater intrinsic "nobility" than shown by Central American Right Wing death squads. Ideology isn't everything. Behavior counts too.

There is no doubt that an American military presence in Iraq fuels "the insurgency" for easily understandable reasons. It is also true that some Iraq nationalists are fearful of an immediate U.S. pull out dooming that nation to an even bloodier civil war. I am not saying that they are right, just that those sentiments exist also.

And I can not think of a more stupid statement ever made by an American "leader" than: "They hate us for our freedoms". It would be more accurate to say of some that "They hate us for our pornography" since Islamists are focused on religious issues and reject some choices that our culture makes on moral grounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oblivious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Oh, for heaven's sake, no one on DU is romanticising the resistance.
... any more than Major General Taluto is.

GOOD AND HONEST IRAQIS FIGHTING US FORCES

By Phil Sands, Staff Reporter

Tikrit: A senior US military chief has admitted "good, honest" Iraqis are fighting American forces.

Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary people would take up arms against the US military because "they're offended by our presence".

In an interview with Gulf News, he said: "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could."


http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/RegionNF.asp?ArticleI...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And your opener in #10 is patronizing as well.

Some of the answers here are disturbing. The "insurgents" are not one single group motivated by love of country and the good of all Iraq.

I do a lot of reading here and I haven't seen anyone imply that they are "a single group motivated by love of country and the good of all Iraq." What's the point of exaggerating like this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. The point?
I never said anyone literally thinks that "the insurgents are one single group motivated by love of country and the good of all Iraq". That was just a framing sentence for a long explanation of just how complex the nature of the Iraq resistance is in my opinion. Call it a writing technique if you will, but it is used all of the time here. I did however say that there is, in my opinion, a disturbing tendency by some here to romanticize the insurgents, I'll stand by that.

I've seen it happen before in leftist circles. Mao was a hero to many for a number of years, which you may or may not be old enough to recall. I know people who lived through the Cultural Revolution in China. It was not the Utopian moment some in the U.S. were calling it, but Mao's Little Red Book sure sold a lot of copies here at the time.

Here is an exaggeration that I do see said by many here; that the Iraq people want the U.S. out of their country now. That is true of millions of Iraq citizens, it is also untrue of millions of Iraq citizens.

I know that there are "good honest Iraqis fighting American forces". I specifically said I am sympathetic to some of the insurgents, just not to all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. You waste a lot of words to not say much of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. please, where did you see
a DUer post that they were

"unbothered that major elements of the insurgency in Iraq conduct suicide bombings daily in Mosques, at funerals, in markets and elsewhere where civilians are certain to be killed" ?

I do not recall a post like that here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
11. How about we let the Iraqi people have a July vote: "In or Out"
If they could have that "wonderful" vote back in January for the "elections", I don't see any reason that the people there can't have another vote in July to determine whether we stay, leave, or even go out on a time table. I mean, it is their country, isn't it? C'mon, George, watcha afraid of? Let 'em have another vote....nice old dictator that you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
15. They're not a cohesive group; it's civil war under occupation
Presuming that most of the freedom fighters are Sunnis, one can argue that they still are a loose confederation who want different things. Some just want to hold onto the power they used to have. Some are Wahabi maniacs who want theocracy and total dominance.

There are also rifts among the Shiites, some of whom are a bit more liberal, and the others being bent on their own version of theocracy. Then there are pan-national Shiites who want to combine with the Persian Shiites and others to form a greater nation state.

More than anything, they want us out. Sadly, I differ from the seeming majority on this board by thinking that were we to leave, it would be a bloodbath with a horrible outcome. We're not going to do that, though, because we want all that tasty oil, need the bases there for when Saudi Arabia explodes and somehow have to do everything Israel wants us to do.

By the way, the funniest late-70s bumper sticker I ever saw was: "Jesus Saves, Moses Invests, Baghwan Spends".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
16. Ever see
the movie Red Dawn?

Get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
18. Why ask, they've said.
One long post above summarizes it quite well.

The Sunni Islamist factions seem to be the loudest and have the most support outside of Iraq; they also seem to be the most violent and oppressive. (The Shi'ite Islamist factions would be pretty much the same, no doubt, but see more long-term benefit in the current Hizbullah and "non-violent" Hamas strategies than in the Islamic Jihad model.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
23. It is interesting that, using today's 'modern' language...
the Patriots that fought King George to wrest the country from the yoke of British tyranny would be identified as 'insurgents' by the British and, at that time, not all in the country supported the Patriots, indeed, there were many supportive of the British, they were called United Empire Loyalists.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
25. There was an article recently, I think from Britain
saying that Americans are remarkably unaware of who they're fighting in Iraq and what the opponents' motives are. Apparently, it's far more factious than the three major sects. There are many smaller groups fighting other smaller groups, even families against families, each with their own motivation.

The one thing most all of them have in common is fighting Americans. But it points to the fact that the country needs a POLITICAL solution. There is no military solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
26. The question in the OP
Has REALLY PISSED ME OFF... It's the WRONG question.

A more appropriate one is WHAT DO THE FUCKING BRUTAL AMERICANS WANT???

By his "vibe" I sat in the front seat. My cabbie was from Pakistan.
After initiating the conversation, my obligatory apology for the land of my birth and his assurance of Menschlichkeit, he cracked me up.

"The Americans are ridiculous. "TERRORISTS." They are SO AFRAID. But it is WE who are being blown up willy-nilly by these whack-job mullahs set loose by American policy. Your *leadership screams "TERRORISTS" your people cringe in their comfortable suburbs and WE get blown up! Now you tell me how many Americans or Germans or Italians have blown up by these "TERRORISTS" recently."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC