Iraq is nearly over. BTW we won.

[Radar]

If you have a gun and you are in their country, you are an invader. If they take up arms against you, it is in their DEFENSE. If you take arms against them, it's because you are a hostile invader.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

If you have a gun and you are in their country, you are an invader. If they take up arms against you, it is in their DEFENSE. If you take arms against them, it's because you are a hostile invader.

That all depends on your definition of who "they" are.

If you are attacking them I agree, If you are there defending and protecting them I wholeheartedly disagree.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by classicman

That all depends on your definition of who "they" are.

If you are attacking them I agree, If you are there defending and protecting them I wholeheartedly disagree.

If you are attacking them? You mean the way America attacked Iraq, destroyed their military and their infrastructure, killed civilians, etc.?

The U.S. Military has NEVER belonged in Iraq. Not for a single day. No actions of America in Iraq are defending Iraqi people from any dangers that we didn't create in the first place. Nothing America is doing in Iraq is legal, or morally or ethically correct. No American in Iraq is defending America from danger. No American soldier in Iraq is upholding their oath. No person who supports the war in Iraq also supports the Constitution. No person who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. Those are the facts. Here is my opinion. Those who support the war in Iraq aren't worthy to call themselves American.

America's actions in Iraq are those of a rogue terrorist nation that violates international law, and doesn't even adhere to its own laws. Anyone who attacks an American soldier in Iraq is attacking an invader who has no business being there. There is no defense for the presence of the U.S. military in Iraq at any point in history.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I'll try and keep this short and to the point. Yes, I am a belligerent. In the exact sense of the word, in keeping with the international rules of war. To be exact, I am a soldier. A uniformed member of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The guy or gal who picks up a rifle and fires rounds at me may or may not be an insurgent or a belligerent. They are certainly a combatant.

I really don't want to speculate as to what anyone else may think of me or themselves.

Thank you for your reply.

Originally Posted by Radar

If you have a gun and you are in their country, you are an invader. If they take up arms against you, it is in their DEFENSE. If you take arms against them, it's because you are a hostile invader.

Radar doesn't share .joe's reluctance to speculate, and does so con brio. I think there is a fair argument in favor of these labels though.

Each side feels justified in their actions. *Regardless* of the actions. Sometimes that justification is an appeal to rules, sometimes to fairness, sometimes to desperation or passion or history or hysteria.

NO ONE thinks their actions are unjustified, evar. There's always a "But..."

Always.

Where two parties agree on the authority, the jurisdiction of the source of the justification, whether it is the the law, the chain of command, the moral imperative, or the voices in their heads, there is harmony and solidarity. Where there is a difference in the respect granted to those sources of authority, there is conflict.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by BigV

Thank you for your reply.

Radar doesn't share .joe's reluctance to speculate, and does so con brio. I think there is a fair argument in favor of these labels though.

Each side feels justified in their actions. *Regardless* of the actions. Sometimes that justification is an appeal to rules, sometimes to fairness, sometimes to desperation or passion or history or hysteria.

NO ONE thinks their actions are unjustified, evar. There's always a "But..."

Always.

Where two parties agree on the authority, the jurisdiction of the source of the justification, whether it is the the law, the chain of command, the moral imperative, or the voices in their heads, there is harmony and solidarity. Where there is a difference in the respect granted to those sources of authority, there is conflict.

Or, as in the case with Iraq (and many other situations in the past ) if America wants something, it gets it because it has the muscle to do so. Saddam went rogue on the US and so the US went all out to first correct him and then finally just get rid of him. Of course, they had to use a lot of subterfuge to do it.