Iraq - Terrorism or Homeland Defence?

[Barley]

Firstly may I appologise if this topic has come up before, I guess it has but given the escalating level of attacks perhaps the discussion can continue anyway.

Im afraid to say I look at it on the side of Homeland Defence, I am sure if USA or any other country attacked the UK (or any other country) and occupied the nation much of the inhabitants would resent the occupation and there would be a minority willing to take up arms in the struggle. I would certainly do what I could to undermine and disrupt and regime which had imposed itself in similar circumstances.

I am sick and tired of hearing the news channels, papers etc etc refering to the bombings and shootings as terrorist acts. It may be true that foreign nationals and other mulims are going to Iraq to support the specific religeous groups etc but I see not difference in this than what happend in France, Hungary, Poland etc in WW2 the so called "Resistance" was also supported by supplies, intelligence and many other means by both UK and USA in these instances.

Terrorism is only war by unconventional means, im sorry to say that even includes the attacks at WTC and many less destructive but never the less horrific acts carried out by the IRA.

Im not saying I support so called Terrorism but the Governments of the world need to wake up and look at why their foreign policies cause people to get so desperate they are willing to give their lives for what they believe in (however misguided).

The situation is Iraq will probably rumble on for generations now, its time we seriously review "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and see how we can sort out this MESS.

[Barley]

Oops forgot to mention I am fully behind our troops but they have an impossible job, its the gun hoe polititians at fault, errm MR Bush (and partly Blair who did it for the right reasons but may loose his job over it).

[Dinner]

Barley: Two of the people who were caught after the latest bombing in Iraq whick killed 95 confessed to being members of Al Qaeda.

[Ted Striker]

oh shut up barley you turncoat backstabber

[mrmitchell]

Terrorism is usually defined as "Acts targeting civilians meant to strike fear into a population" BTW

[Barley]

"Turncoat Backstabber"!

I never supported the war in the first place. Its was un-just, I dont want to revel in the glory of this disasterous situation as I dont see what is worthwhile about spending $2 Trillion & 15 soldiers lives a week on a country where it is becoming clearer by the day that the majority of the population dont want us their.

This will go down as one of the most misguided episodes in the 21st century.

- oh and ill leave you to explan what you think im a backstabber......

[Barley]

I get you Ted thanks for that, I forgot about the Civilian issue.

I could argue to cases in favour of attacking civilians - not that I support or believe in them but I like a good argument so here goes.

1) Definition of Terrorism as attacks on Civilians is a moralistic self indulgance of Democracies and other advanced social styles in which I mean we judge by our own ideals that have developed through history to what they are today. In that history all nations including UK & USA have committed many many equivilant acts of "Terrorism" against civillians, its is only our morality that has changed. Others in the world have different levels of morality, we look to impose our will on the world and expect all to play by our rules - not liekley I think.

2) If your desperate and your opponent is strong you will resort to whatever means you have to hurt them. Would you break the law to get revenge on someone? its not the same level but its the same principle.

[SlowwHand]

U.N. Resolution 1441

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Barley
worthwhile about spending $2 Trillion & 15 soldiers lives a week on a country where it is becoming clearer by the day that the majority of the population dont want us their.

$2 trillion and 15 soldiers per week? are you out of your gord? You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

[SlowwHand]

Barley, you're mistaken on all counts.

[JCG]

Does killing one of the leaders of your country's majority religion, not to mention a lot of innocent bystanders and churchgoers (insert equivalent islamic term), count as "homeland defense" too?

I understand the reasoning behind your post to a degree, but that's a long way from ever saying: "since terrorism is just another means of making war then it's ok to do ANYTHING in order to win/get the occupiers out".

That's giving them a blank check to do whatever the hell they want, in a sense.

Besides, you simply cannot (or rather shouldn't, as you are free to try, of course) successfully group all those instances and situations together in a serious argument, unless you're being intentionally vague. They are very different, if you look at the finer details (and not just limit yourself to saying "they are all opposition movements and that's it").

If you ask me, it's BOTH terrorism and homeland defense in the case of Iraq, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not doing any good for the people of Iraq themselves. The US could and should change its way of handling things though.

[Barley]

Guess I am trying to start an argument / stimulate conversation I suppose. maybe ive been a bit dramatic but im trying to present all sides not just my feelings.

$2 Trillion and 15 Soliers is what the operation is costing UK/USA per week.

[mrmitchell]

$2 Trillion? Are you sure?

EDIT: D'oh. Brits use different powers of 10 for billion, trillion, don't they?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Barley
$2 Trillion and 15 Soliers is what the operation is costing UK/USA per week.

Clueless. Utterly clueless. The figure from the start of the war to today is around $100 billion for the US (that's 1/20 of your claimed weekly cost) and there's been one injuried or killed per day since the beginning of occupation (only about 500 Allied soldiers were killed during the entire invasion). Also a large percentage of those allied dead or wounded got they way in accidents or desiese not through combat opporations. The peace time force has a very similiar accident rate. It is disingenious to try to blame auto accidents upon the invasion. Especially since they also happen in peace time.

I believe it was Lazerous & the Gimp who asked what the difference between the peace time and occupiation accident rates were. I don't know but I'd bet they were very close to one another.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
$2 Trillion? Are you sure?

EDIT: D'oh. Brits use different powers of 10 for billion, trillion, don't they?

No, I don't think so. Trillion always means the third place (I.E. million, billion, trillion).

It is absolutely absured to say the cost was $2 trillion. The US war cost was $70 billion and according to the GAO the occupation costs to date are around $30 billion. So the US total is around $100 billion. Does anyone seriously believe the UK and Australia have spent $1.9 billion on the war (roughly 2 times their combined GDP)? That would mean they spent 19 times what the US spent.

Of course not. The claim is entirely uneducated.