Why do they always "defend" themselves by invading countries that cannot fight back? Should they be treated as terrorists? Are Iraqis right to shoot them if they can?
terrorists are those who lack the power to convey their "truth" with means of nukes and armed forces...
The individual soldiers are often young men and women thrust into unpredictable situations by incompetent and apathetic leaders. Dying for ideals betrayed. Indvidually they are not terrorists. But individual responsibility fades when the individual is placed in a group.
It's not that simple SAM. If they were at war, then yes. But they lost that war, however improper it is. It is wrong for Iraqis to shoot them if they are doing no harm to them. I can understand why individuals would feel justified in shooting them. You mix nationalism into this and it gets even more blurred. Since most troops intend to help, it is wrong to shoot them.
Anybody who is under the forceful occupation of somebody else has the right to do anything and everything in order to free himself and his family.
Anybody who has the most power has the right to wield it to do anything and everything in order to attain more power and keep that power for themselves and their country. US: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! vs. Iraq: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Asguard: yeah to avoid sockpuppets. But there's Gitmo. Hmm. Would a moderator please make the poll anonymous?
Fine, as long as you accept that the people they oppress will squeeze a bullet between their eyes given the opportunity.
Difficult question ....... the US expected to find weapons of mass destruction .......due to faulty intelligence .... based on what we know now , the invasion was not justified ...... However , after loosing the dictator Saddam Hussein .....who was a real and BAD dictator, the interim government .... good or bad.... asked the coalition to stay ....... I think it is time for the coalition to leave !!!!!!!!!!!! No , it is NOT justified for Iraqis to shoot at them .... and as far I as I understand, from the medias in my country, the ones that shoot on them are NOT iraqis , but foreigners (al-qaeda´s) .... that even the iraqis are afraid of .........!!!!!!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!:m:
Being a "terrorist" is an individual choice and a way of life (in the end). The point of terrorism is to strike fear in the hearts of innocent people. Though no one can deny that the USA has struck fear in the hearts of people (many people in fact), the end intent is not ultimately the destruction and or fear of those people, MUCH as SAM and her ilk would like to make everybody believe. But that little morsel of truth always gets lost in the debate. When one person is hellbent on twisting the truth of the matter by throwing out ONLY the bad examples of military action and none of the positive ones, then OF COURSE it's all going to loose its meaning and become something perceptibly pernicious. Terrorism and terrorists have no "positive" attributes: by the definition of a terrorist, they have to WANT to hurt and destroy. Most people who join the armed forces do it to either help their own people or to help others. Just because some bad things happen, doesn't alter the overall intent. Just because some of the people formulating that intent may be bad people with selfish motives, doesn't alter the overall intent of the soldiers either. How many examples are there of soldiers engaged in active duty doing good? What's the ratio (not opinion) of good results to bad? How many examples of terrorists engaged in terrorism doing good? What's the ratio (not opinion) of good results to bad?
Ignoring people who go beyond their orders, like in Haditha, I don't think so. They signed up before the Iraq war, mostly. Fighting there was not their idea, and it was not their place to question orders. The average US soldier is no more a terrorist than the soldier of other countries, I believe. People like those in the Bush administration do have guilt. I'm not sure terrorist is the most apt term, though, it is too light for them. As to whether the Iraqis have the right to shoot them... it depends on what their goal is. If they view the US as an evil occupier, which they are justified to do, then I guess they are. But it has complications. Like, do they think that the action will make things better for their fellow Iraqis in any worthwhile way or not? According to recent American ideals, they certainly have the right to fight US soldiers. After all, the US bombed a bunch of unrelated innocent civilians because their own civilians were killed in 9/11. It goes to show how horrible US policy is when it gives their enemy more than equivalent reasons to fight them.
