And: Given that this "war" is not a war at all but an illegal occupation, are resistors not free to retaliate in ways that are outside the normal strictures of war? Where do you draw the line?
I agree with you 100%.
ANY action is an honorable action when done in the name of "The Revolution." (After all, we learned that lesson from the French Revolution.)
The United States should allow Saddam and his fellow "detainees" to have their country back. He would put an end to all of this "resistance to the occupiers through private armies" nonsense. After all, he maintained order before, he can do it again. This would end all of this talk about an "illegal occupation." Saddam could deal with things and not have to worry about any legal issues -- after all, he is the legal head of the country and can do what ever he wants.
It is utterly clear that the United States should have left as soon as they toppled the statue of Saddam. Policy makers made a very big mistake trying to find and capture Saddam and the rest of the Iraqi Army which "just disappeared in the night." There was absolutely no justification possible for such actions on the part of anyone. They were clearly illegal.
The situation in Iraq could easily be solved the way the French want it resolved -- "Diplomatically."
Put Saddam back in power, let the French and their friends have all of the "extra" oil he was giving to the various UN folks running the "oil for food" program. Let the French banks continue to exclusively control all of the UN money flows (for a fee) as they did for the 10 years since the first Gulf War. [In case you missed it, this is the multi-billion Franc reason why the French Government opposed the UN actions... they had a really cushy deal going with Saddam, and they knew they would loose "everything" if he were deposed.]
American policy makers made a very big and significant mistake in invading Iraq. They made the mistake of believing that not only was what Saddam Hussain was doing was immoral as well as illegal, but that the Iraqi people actually would appreciate his being removed. Clearly, the Iraqi people preferred living under Saddam to trying to govern themselves.
You can believe all you want to believe about Weapons of Mass Destruction being the reason that we invaded Iraq -- that is what the media want you to believe. It helps them sell newspapers and advertising.
Just remember an interesting thing about the two candidates -- both Bush and Kerry are Bonesmen. (And, after all, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.)
As for where to draw the line... easy. The line is drawn by the victors.
No war has ever been fought under terms of the "Geneva Conventions," neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War. (We'll simply ignore everything that happens every day in Africa since nobody knows, or cares, what goes on there anyway.) There hasn't been a war fought "according to codes of conduct" since Wellington at Waterloo. War crimes never existed before the Allies won WWII. ... Haven't you ever wondered why there were never any "War Crimes" issues brought up after all of the gas that was used in WWI?
I'm sorry, but if you find any justification for the actions of Berg's captors, not only are you an "enabler," but you are 100% approving of those actions. All of the so-called "horrified" Muslims who refuse to condemn the actions are silently approving them. ... that was another lesson learned from the French Revolution -- if you're not for us, you're against us, and you will die.
T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
