A message from the Iraqi resistance

This war was an illegal invasion of a sovereign independent country, an invasion that was against the will of the proud people of Iraq,that was in direct violation of international law, and whose intention was to rob of its last resort a poor people that has suffered decades of sanctions.

First off, any country that gets invaded will be resisted by "proud" people, irregardless of the reasons. These "proud" people are just sore that they are about to lost the monopoly they've held over politics for the past decades.

Could you tell me what international law has been violated? Because I think international law was kept, taking in all of the intelligence the US had at the time. Unlike in say Rwanda where the international community broke an international law by non-intervention in a genocide.

Your troops have given nothing but genocidal death and suffering to the people of Iraq. The resistance is legitimate and fights for the freedom that  your government has taken from the people of Iraq.

The genocidal death and suffering, has been instigated by the very people of Iraq, who like vultures over a corpse are trying to get the choicest pieces for themselves.

I won't argue that Iraq was one of the most free Arabic states, but it WAS under a dictatorship that used torture and deception as a means to control the populace, and don't think that everything was all peaceful, like the failed coup against Saddam after the Gulf War when the US chose not to get involved.

Your troops do not intend to leave Iraq until the last drop of oil is drained from within its soil.

Propaganda and stupid, if that was the case we'd all ready have invaded Iran, or we'd just give Iraq  to our "buddies" the Saudis.

If Iraqis really had weapons of mass destruction, you would never have dared to invade their country.

Agreed, I mean they could barely hang on in Iran in the 80's.

The Iraqi people never asked for your freedom or democracy. They fight it and will continue to fight it until you leave and stop meddling in their country. And then maybe one day they will be able to bring from withing a true democracy and enjoy true freedoms, unlike the false democracy and the false freedom that you are trying to impose on them with the intention to steal their resources.

I believe they asked for it in the failed coup of the 90's. I can't imagine that people would want to live in Saddam's police state. Where IIRC after losing an important game the Iraq national soccer team would be tortured. And we are not there to steal resources, once democracy is enabled in Iraq we'll leave and international oil conglomerates will take over so rich and corrupt Iraqi's will get more money, from rich and corrupt oil CEO's.

Correct, Saddam was the only thing that kept them from killing each other in the first place. Which makes the invasion not only illegal but also extraordinary unintelligent.

So it's all right for a few people to be tortured to death so long as stability is achieved. If that's the case, than I assume you support the Patriot Act in it's entirety?

he said mongols were the first super power like america he also said that they were the only non-muslims that invaded iraq just like america

Bullsh*t, that area was occupied first by Alexander the Great, then later briefly by the Romans and the Byzantines, don't forget the British occupied the region after WWI. Also, of course it hasn't been conquered by too many non-muslims, it is in the center of the historic muslim world, many other more powerful nations would have had to have been brought down for it to be even close to occupied.

institutionalised torture, like that seen at Abu Ghraib

Please don't use that as official US policy in Iraq, all the guilty parties have been tried and sentenced, as well as condemned here in America by the regular populace and gov't officials. Things like this happen in every war where individuals supercede their orders.

The occupiers know that the current situation is unsustainable and cannot last much longer

Only because America's do not understand how occupation is supposed to work. It took the US from 1776 to 1789 before we had a functioning government. It took France from 1789-1804 before they had a functioning government. Wars that go from dictatorship to democracy take time, and I wouldn't think it outrageous for the US to be in Iraq another five years, these things take time, just because everything is going slower than people want doesn't mean it isn't going.

I refuse to watch terrorist propoganda.

That's an idiotic statement Adalwolf, since even if you don't want to watch it, terrorists and sympathizers do want to watch it, and will use it in arguements against you, so it's best to be prepared to defend your beliefs.

War is a legal part of the international system!

"War is a continuation of politics by other means." -Carl von Clausewitz.

Abu Ghraib was a mere drop in the Ocean! It happened at Gitmo; what about the secret CIA torture houses on foreign soil that we've heard so much about lately in Europe? Goodness knows what else.

Iraq will never turn into a stable democracy, not now - the most likely thingthat Iraq will turn into will be three separate states. And the difference between France and Iraq is that Iraq is under a brutal occupation that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of its people, at the least.

Did you just compare US to Nazi Germany

It already is, but due to the effective media propaganda, the scale of the disaster there has been under-reported.

Originally posted by JanusRook So it's all right for a few people to be tortured to death so long as stability is achieved. If that's the case, than I assume you support the Patriot Act in it's entirety?

Not at all, but making it worse is not a good option either. The American invasion was the catalyst that started the mayhem (yes, I do know all the genociding going on is commited by the proud Iraqi themselves). If you don't have a good solution better don't do anything at all. Comparing the US with Nazi Germany is utterly ludicrous though.

Haditha massacre, one year on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6162442.stm

Example of Iraqis enjoying their freedom... in the afterlife. Notice how the matter was overlooked until pictures were sent to Time.

What about all of the other "incidents" resulting in civilian deaths where there was no photgrapher present immediately after...
    

Edited by Zagros - 08-Dec-2006 at 12:32

Well,America will leave.So what?Another powerfull State will try to dominate over Iraq's corspe,Iran or Saudi Arabi or Turkey.Not that they care,they only want to secure themselves.That's how it is,that's how it will always be.Politics means serving interests.The fundamental difference ,though,is whose interests do you serve.

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy Thus America should leave Iraq, and for good.

Originally posted by Adalwolf Originally posted by Zagros Murder is perfectly natural too... is it therefore perfectly legal? I think not. I admire the way people can defend the indefensible, shows a real tenacity. War is a legal part of the international system! My international relations teacher said this about a million times! It is legal part of the system, but not a well-liked part of the system! Get it through your heads!

so any invasion of any country then can be made legal?

I wonder by who's law your teacher is refering to. Maybe the law of the jungle

The crime of aggression

"The draft statute contains two options concerning the definition of aggression. One possible definition lists the specific acts for which an individual in a position of responsibility could be held accountable for aggression. The following acts would constitute the crime of aggression under this definition: planning, preparing, ordering, initiating, or carrying out an armed attack, or the use of force, or a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or agreements, by a State, against the territorial integrity of another State, against the provisions in the UN Charter.

A second possible definition provides a list of acts constituting aggression, which includes the following:

• invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation, or annexation of territory by the use of force
  
• bombardment by armed forces of a State against the territory of another State
  
• the blockade of ports or coasts of a State
  
• the use of armed forces of a State which are within the territory of another State in violation of the terms of an agreement between those States
  
• a State allowing its territory to be used by another State for an act of aggression against a third State
  
• a State sending armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries to carry out grave acts of armed force against another State
  Consideration of the definition of aggression will continue at the Conference in Rome."

UN

The UN Charter Article 2
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

UN

Originally posted by JanusRook [QUOTE] --------------------------- I will ask everyone this though. Forget about personal bias, forget about reports and everything else. Do you think that Iraq would be better in the long term with or without Saddam? If you say with Saddam you should lobby your gov't to demand the re-instatement of Saddam to power in Iraq. If not then you should support the US occupation, because they are the only stabilizing force in Iraq right now and once Iraq is stabilized the US will leave.

It would have been f**kin waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse in the long run.