UT, it can't be the Brits. The foreign army must be from a culture utterly alien, representing a different world view which we don't get.

They also need to put in a form of government outside our experience.

I would probably get involved with that as well or something similar to that. This is also why we can not label all insurgency into one group.

How about China or if you really want alien, Australia.

Bruce, and why is it again you're suckering yourself into trying to defend the fascists against the democrats? That's what your argument boils down to. It amounts to your arguing against the best interest of all of mankind -- which category should include you. How can you be so morally careless?

Undemocrats cannot have moral equivalency with democrats. Understand this: undemocracy facilitates oppression and too often develops out of someone's seeking license to oppress some out-group, while democracy hinders oppression -- perhaps slowly, but so far as I can see, inevitably. This "different system" idea of yours prevents your actual understanding of what's at stake, and thus your thinking becomes self-obfuscated and ultimately self-defeated. To indulge a cliche, then the terrorists have won. Over you, anyway.

Hey man... I'm all for the Chinese gettin' hooked on cash, Marlboro and Levis. It's what brought down the USSR.
Well for China, it's gonna' be Google, KFC and Nintendo, but fuck-it... it's good.
I'm ALL FOR IT!

China... heading for T.P.M. Barnett's New Core...

When the paradigm shifts in China and a LOT of people say "heeeeyyyyy...", it is going to be uuuuUUUUgggLLLEEEE!
A few other people are going to go... "hey, you gotta' plane? That dude with the nuclear waste in his back-yard is lookin' at me funny."

What complete and utter bullshit. You are the one trying to impose your utopia on the whole world. You want to decide what people must choose. You are the fascist.Moral equivalency is a myth. If you are deciding what is moral and what is not, you're in fact doing nothing more than judging everyone else to be, fer ya or agin ya. Pompous, to say the least, and the way of every aggressor since Caine.

In other words, you cannot tolerate an exhibition of moral choice on my part.

What utter error, Bruce. It isn't my Utopia -- it's not a Utopia at all. It is proven, in action, every single day, by three hundred million Americans, rather fewer Canadians, and so on and so on. You shouldn't be wandering down that path. I concern myself with mankind's best interest, which is not, of course, to be found under a dictatorship's thumb. There, you find only the dictator's interest, all others at best underserved. Recall that I have personal experience with the way dictatorships behave. That is why I'm such a partisan for democracy, for societies that operate more by consensus.

Do you mean Cain? I don't recall any with-or-against from him.

I am pleased, though, to see we agree about "moral equivalency" -- some societies simply do better by their members than others, and the respective properties of either are readily enumerated. Any need to guess which one is worth living in? Any need to guess which needs immediate and complete replacement? A democrat isn't a fascist, and you must withdraw your erroneous statement. Never call me a fascist unless you haven't lied enough today. In other words, Bruce, no idiot-talk today, please.

Other than for yourself... HELL NO! Don't try to impose your choices on me.
Oh, you get to decide what's in, "mankind's best interest"? Well, I don't welcome our "mankind's best interest" overlord. So, no thank you.
Sure you have experience in dictators, you are one.... or at least want to be, in the determination of "mankind's best interest". No, he just killed anyone that pissed him off.See, there you go telling people what they must do.... again, still, ad nauseum.... that's what fascist do. I'll withdraw nothing.

OK, you win. you're not a fascist. I'll try to remember that when you waddle, quack and lay big fat eggs.

Were I Iraqi, I might end up being considered a bad guy by occupying forces.

HM, would you kill them?

PH, that make it OK to kill people?

What do you exactly mean by that? Be more specific.

In terms of the insurgency it seems that people join to see their country become stable again and internally run. They do not trust the US government to bring them what they want so they will fight and kill to get what they want. This type of scenario always brings us to a universal (best for society) moral situation.

Is it OK to kill one person to ensure the safety of 10?
Is it OK to kill 10,000 to bring freedom to 1 million?
Is it OK to kill 3,000 to make life easier for 300 million?

Morals are subjective so there is no right or wrong answer but when you talk about morals on a universal scale, what is best for society, a lot of those will be attempted to be justified.

An invasion is the single strongest justification for war, by all measures. So if my nation were invaded and I found myself courageous enough, I would attack the invader.