In the thread “America Won’t Defeat the Insurgency,” MisterSwig insists that “Iraq” is the “enemy.”
I insist that “Iraq” is the “enemy” in no sense of these words–the Iraqi government is semi-soverign and allied with the U.S., and a small percentage of the Iraqi people are the “enemy” (i.e. enemy combatants).
I created this thread so we can continue the discussion and get participation from others as well.
MisterSwig had brought up the point that the majority of Iraqis seem to be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to us. My response is to say that the majority of French people may be more sympathetic to the terrorists than us! That does not make the people of France the enemy; neither should it make the people of Iraq the enemy. (Also I’m not sure that the majority of either French or Iraqis really are unsympathetic to us, but my point stands illustrated nonetheless.)
MisterSwig–sorry I related what you said to what one could hear in a church; the difference is that you’re trying to qualify your points with facts, and they don’t (when they make statements bashing the Iraqi people as enemies). This is demeaning to me because I have met American Iraqis who are not enemies and I am sure there are many individuals in Iraq who are by no means in opposition to the U.S. I just hate to see a whole population branded, collectively, as “the enemy.”
MisterSwig had brought up the point that the majority of Iraqis seem to be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to us. My response is to say that the majority of French people may be more sympathetic to the terrorists than us! That does not make the people of France the enemy; neither should it make the people of Iraq the enemy.
Well, it certainly doesn’t make them our ally! Which is your position. Our allies don’t sympathize with our enemies.
You seem to be left with only two choices. Iraq is either the enemy or a neutral force. And I don’t think there is much of an argument for them being a neutral force in their own war.
Calling them our “enemy” is ridiculous. Our enemy is the insurgency, not the Iraqi government.
Well, it certainly doesn’t make them our ally! Which is your position. Our allies don’t sympathize with our enemies.
You seem to be left with only two choices. Iraq is either the enemy or a neutral force. And I don’t think there is much of an argument for them being a neutral force in their own war.
The Iraqi government must be our ally because we are occupying their country; they have no other option right now. It came into existence because the US held elections and we would do away with it if it didn’t cooperate with the US.
The Iraqi people are a neutral force (in the same way the French are), and the insurgents–and only them specifically–are the enemy.
Neutrality is the most dangerous position of all. Even so, I don’t believe the Iraqi people are neutral. There are some who are with us and some who are against us…I don’t believe that there are any who are truly neutral.
Neutrality is the most dangerous position of all. Even so, I don’t believe the Iraqi people are neutral. There are some who are with us and some who are against us…I don’t believe that there are any who are truly neutral.
What I meant by a “neutral force” is that, for the intents and purposes of the U.S., they are neither enemy combatants nor legally allied to us. I don’t believe the Iraqi people are sentimentally neutral… they probably resent our occupation, but i don’t think we can call them, as a body, “the enemy” until every single Iraqi adult takes up arms against us.
The people of Britain weren’t the enemy in the Revolutionary War. The Japanese people, who supposedly would have fought to the last man in World War II (or so our textbooks tell us), WERE the enemy and that’s why we can have a resonable discussion about he morality of nuking them.
The people of Britain weren’t the enemy in the Revolutionary War.
The Declaration of Independence says otherwise:
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
EITHER:
The Iraqi government represents the whole of Iraq, in which case we are justified in holding them responsible for their people’s terrorist war against us.
OR:
The Iraqi government does not represent the whole of Iraq, in which case we are justified in leveling hostile areas in the Red Zone until those who do represent the rest of Iraq surrender.
OR:
The Iraqi government does not represent the whole of Iraq, in which case we are justified in leveling hostile areas in the Red Zone until those who do represent the rest of Iraq surrender.
I’ll take OR as well, except perhaps the justification bit.
I don’t necessarily know that starting this war was in anyone’s best interest, and I don’t know that continuing it is, either. It would be different if we had done it properly. Although still not necessarily justified, especially considering the fact that the justification–to destroy weapons of mass destruction–has been invalidated by Bush’s admittance that there were none there.