Given the fact that the UK/USA are engaged in foreign wars of occupation, carpet bagging and wholesale murder do you think that the people of those countries and like minded people have a right to attack the UK/USA and the people of those countries.

Given the fact that the countries we invade cannot match us militarily so therefore the only option open to those people is terrorist activities against us at home or abroad, are the people of these countries right to defend themselves by whatever means at their disposal.

How many of us would volunteer to become, terrorists, insurgents and partisans etc. if our respective countries were invaded and occupied and would we be right in our course of action to defend ourselves.

Would the UK/USA invade a country for whatever reason that could match us militarily or at least be able to inflict heavy casulties and attack our homelands.

I would apreciate your thoughts on this subject.

Thanks

mod edit: title caps

[edit on 15-9-2006 by sanctum]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I would apreciate your thoughts on this subject.

My thought on what you said is .....

Come'on ... the people of Iraq aren't the ones killing Americans over there. The insurgents are. The terrorists are. And they are killing Iraqis in big numbers as well.

The Iraqi people HATE the insurgents for two major reasons -

1 - because they are murdering Iraqis, not liberating them.

2 - because as long as the idiot insurgents keep it up then the Americans and the coalition will have to stay and the newly freed people of Iraq would like to get their country back from both Saddam and the forces that liberated them from him.

edit to fix quote


[edit on 9/15/2006 by FlyersFan]

Thanks for the reply but I was looking at the whole picture and not just recent events. Like the 300k Iraq soldiers killed in Iraq1 or the 500k children who died from malnutrition and lack of medical care between Iraq1-2.
Who are these insurgents/ dose it matter, do they have a right to fight the foreign invader.
Again I would ask the question would you become a fighter if you country was invaded and would you refuse the help of others.
Irrespective of whats happening in Iraq now the whole world holds the UK/USA responsible for the mess it is in.

Very interesting topic.

How many of us would volunteer to become, terrorists, insurgents and partisans etc. if our respective countries were invaded and occupied and would we be right in our course of action to defend ourselves.

I for one would absolutely become a "resistance fighter".
HOWEVER I would never target civilians. My focus would be on strategic targets, aimed at crippling the opposing enemy. During war, all military personnel, and military related properties, be they weapons, transport systems and the like, are targets. Instead of blowing up places of worship, restaurants, and all other civilian properties, focus on disrupting the supply system to the troops on the front. It makes no difference if you are facing the largest and mightiest army ever created. Without fuel, and ammunition, their mighty weapons are little more than paper weights. Without food and water, their troops, no matter their number, would be demoralized, and likely to surrender if prolonged long enough.
Just my 2 cents.

I agree with you Lom, When the IRA were active they hardly touched the goverment or the military they always went for the soft targets. And yes your right many peeps would take up arms against a foreign invader.

I'd be with lombozo. I wouldn't be launching terrorist attacks on the invading country's homeland. I'd be helping to actively resist the invading army. Erode the morale of the occupiers. Disrupt their resupply. Cloud their moral imperative and purpose. Pulling off a suicide bombing in their homeland killing a dozen or so women and children would do nothing to help our cause. If anything, I believe it would give the occupying forces greater focus and purpose for their mission.

I have to agree with lombozo there. Theres a fundamental difference between terrorists and resistance fighters (if there even are any in Iraq) ive heard most of the insurgence fighters are foreign to Iraq.

Terrorists do not aim for the military or strategic military targets they target civilians. If they really wanted rid of an invading force they would target the invading force them selfs and given the resources manufacturing plants abroad that supply the invading force.

I understand what you are all saying but unless we have fist hand knowledge of who's fighting its difficult to make factual comments. Are we calling people insurgents/terrorists because they are fighting against a regime we wish to impose upon them or should we be calling them freedom fighters because they resist our occupation. In WW2 the French resistance and Russian partisans were seen as freedom fighters by the Allies but to the Germans they were terrorists and were treated as such.

The answer I am looking for is dose the indigenous population of a country have the right to fight against foreign invaders whom ever they may be or for what ever the reason for the invasion. And if they do do, do they have a right to export that resistance to the home countries of the invaders if the think that it would bring about the end of that occupation.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Like the 300k Iraq soldiers killed in Iraq1

You are saying that 300,000 Iraqi soldiers died in Gulf War I? Okay. Fine. They invaded Kuwait and they lost the war. They got their butts kicked and they wouldn't have if they had stayed home .. in IRAQ and not taken over Kuwait. So IF 300,000 soldiers died, then it was the fault of Saddam for sending them into a foreign country to take it over.

Thank goodness we got rid of Saddam. Now that can't happen again.

the 500k children who died from malnutrition and lack of medical care between Iraq1-2.

Got proof of that? The highly inflated numbers released by Bagdad Bob don't count. BTW .. you do know that the Oil For Food money was supposed to be going to them right? The Oil for Food money that Saddam was stealing and building palaces with .. and paying off the UN security council with. He bought their votes with Oil for Food money so that they would vote against liberating the Iraqis. Anyone in Iraq who died of starvation or medical care being withheld, between the Gulf Wars, died as a result of Saddam stealing the Oil for Food money.

Thank goodness we got rid of Saddam. Now that can't happen again.

Who are these insurgents/ dose it matter, do they have a right to fight the foreign invader.

yes it does matter. You didn't see what I said. They aren't fighting an invader force. They are fighting the force that liberated the people from Saddam. They are MOSTLY killing Iraqis! They are fighting the Iraqi people and the Iraqis hate them.

They are not liberators .. they are murderers of Iraqis and they are causing us to have to be there longer than we want to. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I understand what you are all saying but unless we have fist hand knowledge of who's fighting its difficult to make factual comments. Are we calling people insurgents/terrorists because they are fighting against a regime we wish to impose upon them or should we be calling them freedom fighters because they resist our occupation. In WW2 the French resistance and Russian partisans were seen as freedom fighters by the Allies but to the Germans they were terrorists and were treated as such.

No, they are called terrorists, because their goal is to terrorize. During WW2 the resistance fighters not only targeted the enemy MILITARY presence, they also risked their own lives saving the lives of their allied soldiers who were caught behind enemy lines. These brave heroes, and yes I use the word heroes, protected their own. Terrorists do not protect their own. They, to a degree, target their own.

The answer I am looking for is dose the indigenous population of a country have the right to fight against foreign invaders whom ever they may be or for what ever the reason for the invasion. And if they do do, do they have a right to export that resistance to the home countries of the invaders if the think that it would bring about the end of that occupation.

One word answer YES. That being said however, they do not have the right to target civilians. Pretty cut and dried in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents.

so why are the american, uk, and isreali forces carpet bombing civilian settlements?

Why is it we have alright to target civillians but others dont, we created this mess in Iraq and now were blaming others for it. I dont recall a national outcry in Iraq asking fot the UK/USA saviours to come and rescue them. The reasons for Iraq 2 have been found to be false so why did we go there in the first place?

I think the source of the numbers of dead children was released by the world health organisation. And your right Iraq invaded what was part of its own country before we made it Kuwait in 63.

Saddam insane was a despot but a despot kept there and supplied by the west was he not. Thats the problem we interfer in other peoples affairs and when they hit back we dont like it do we. If their not on our side then there all terrorists, insurgents etc and against us. Getting rid of one tyranny that killed tens of thousands and replacing it with another that kills hundreds of thousands is not the answer nor will it ever be. As long as we interfere and wish to force people to our ways there will be war and terrorism.

Originally posted by doggmann
so why are the american, uk, and isreali forces carpet bombing civilian settlements?

I can't answer that, but I go on record as saying it is absolutely wrong. That was not the original question however.

Lombozo I think you will find that both Russian and French freedom fighters killed many of their own people who in their opinion were not patriotic or were seen as collaberators.

LOM during the recent Israeli actions in the Lebanon Amwerican re-supply planes were landing in Scotland full of bombs to give to the Israelis so they could bomb Palestine, I think most reports of that 6 week campaign stated that civilians were the hardest hit. Do you understand now why people hate the UK/USA/ISRAEL.

hey mushroom good points!
concidering how we have our policies of war that find killing civilians, an unfortunate nessessity, as long as the ends justify the means. but with that line of thinking than yes we of the west do deserve to be retaliated against. if our country goes and kills the people of iraq or afganistan because of what their political leaders did, the why wouldnt we pay the price for the mistakes our leaders make. the scary thing is if nuclear arms were to be brought into the game. it is the people of the western cultures who will ultimatly pay the price. it is our responibility to keep our own governments in check.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by doggmann]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
LOM during the recent Israeli actions in the Lebanon Amwerican re-supply planes were landing in Scotland full of bombs to give to the Israelis so they could bomb Palestine, I think most reports of that 6 week campaign stated that civilians were the hardest hit. Do you understand now why people hate the UK/USA/ISRAEL.

I never argued that point. I love my country. I served proudly. I disagree completely with the way things are being handled right now however.
I have made my point of view regarding Israels government here on the board many many times. I think the Israeli government is a disgrace. I think the American government is a disgrace. I don't really have a real opinion on the UK.

Thats the trouble Lom there is brave and good people on both sides of any conflict and many have paid the ultimte sacrifice and for what, to be used and abused by the rich/powerful/politicians/religeous fanatics who have never fought a war in their lives. Maybe in the next conflict we should send them off to kill each other first and we the cannon fodder can die of old age in our beds.

Originally posted by FlyersFan


The Iraqi people HATE the insurgents for two major reasons -

1 - because they are murdering Iraqis, not liberating them.

2 - because as long as the idiot insurgents keep it up then the Americans and the coalition will have to stay

[edit on 9/15/2006 by FlyersFan]

Hey FlyersFan, With 60k points this should be a soft toss for you:

Why do you think these "insurgents" exist?

[edit on 22-9-2006 by La Balance]

Flyer dont you find it stange that you can believe the things you want to hear but discount anything you dont. How do you know who's killing who, were not even keeping a body count on civilian deaths.

The problem is that we went into Iraq not to topple Sadam but to get and secure oil, thats why we went into kuwait. And before 63 Kuwaitwas part of Iraq. We created a vacum and into that has been sucked all the waring factions, these people are killing each other because of OUR actions and no one else's. If you distabalise a country this is what happens and it can take a long time to settle down.

If you havent noticed the people of the Middle East dont like us, they have not liked us since the days of the crusades so you can hardly be suprised at the way things are turning out.


And getting back to the original thread what would you do if your country was invaded, would you fight, you know become an insurgent or would you just kow tow to the new rulers. And if your country was on the verge of a civil war what do you think would happen, you must have some idea because your country has experienced it.