Skip to main content

The pre-emptive policy of this government that has led us now to perpetual war, has done nothing but goad countries like North Korea into thinking they have the ability to do as we do and escape international condemnation. Now, I know that an occupation of this country along those lines is something impossible to consider to some, and I don't believe we as a people would ever allow it to go that far... However, for the sake of conversation and to see this from a perspective that may just jolt some reason into some, what would an occupied America do? A reality check, if you will...

My journal:

It is now the end of the second month of the occupation. Most of the cities of the Eastern coast are in ruins as a result of the bombardment that has levelled them. They struck without warning and in violation of international law. They violated our most sacred relics and they destroyed our White House, Capital building, and other monuments in their "Shock and Awe" campaign. They claim our country needed "liberating" from the current administration, and that our leader was a threat to world peace. My question then is: How is making war bringing peace?  

There is no clean water, no power, and little food. Life as we knew it no longer exists, and medical care is out of the question as hospitals are filled to capacity, and ambulances carrying the wounded and dead are now being stopped at checkpoints and denied access to our major cities.

The stench of the dead is also overwhelming as tanks patrol the streets looking for any survivors. Martial law has been declared, and I sit in this bunker beneath it all in fear for my life from the invading army which kills without warning and without remorse.

My son who is only 15 has been taken from me, taken by them to be sent to their training center to be trained for the army they say will restore order once they leave. I don't believe that for one minute. My son is innocent of the world's atrocities, but he will now be forced to see a world that he should never have had to see, and a world he will be forced to have a hand in making.

My husband was sent to a local prison for processing during a raid of our home in search of guns, and I don't know if I will ever see him again. I managed to escape with another family and some others afterwards to their bunker. We are truly in the bowels of hell. I have not stopped crying since this happened, and am on the verge of suicide with my thoughts of hopelessness. Our beloved Constitution in tatters. How could this happen?

The government of the occupying country has announced however, that they will pull out once order has been restored, yet it was they who caused the havoc. They also state this was done for our own good and to free us from a brutal dictator who was in possession of WMD with the intent of world domination. However, they are also building more prisons and military bases here now, so it is obvious to me that they have no intention of leaving regardless of their words.

That is why I am in the process of joining the resistance to fight to get my country and my family back. I will now have to stoop to doing something I never thought I would have to stoop to doing...becoming like the enemy, and the thought of that makes me hate myself. However, if that is the only way there is to get my country back out of the hands of the occupiers, then that is what I am willing to do.

Some of those in the bunker with me eye me suspiciously however, and they think I am really consorting with the enemy because my son is being trained in their army. Some think I should just accept the Communist government of the country that has attacked us, because after all, they did do it to "liberate" the United States from George W. Bush, who now sits in a jail awaiting trial.

I did not agree with the policies of Bush, but I never wanted it to come to this. Why did those who pushed for this war not see what could come of it full circle? Why could they not see the deceptions and stand up for our country first? What am I going to do now? What would you do?

Originally posted to Patriot for Al Gore on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:20 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's your journal, I know, but (none)
    "martial" not Marshal....

    To write in plain vigorous language one has to think fearlessly, and if one thinks fearlessly one cannot be politically orthodox. George Orwell, 1946

    by deepintheheartoftx on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:22:13 AM PDT

  •  Comment (4.00)
    And as I stated, I personally do not ever foresee this happening... But then, I don't know if the people of Iraq foresaw it either. The moral to this is then: be careful of what you do, for it one day can come back to haunt you. Looking to the future is something we must begin doing if we are to ever survive the here and now.
    •  Two words: (4.00)
      "Red Dawn"

      Right wingers love this movie -- I do too -- and yet it explains perfectly why many Iraqis are fighting for independence.  Just as Patrick Swayze and the boys ambushed and killed Communist occupiers of America, so too do these Iraqi insurgents ambush and kill our occupying troops in their country.

      In Red Dawn, America is not liberated from a brutal dictatorial regime, but the analogy still holds. Nobody likes having their country occupied and controlled by a foreign power, especially when said country had not attacked anyone in the first place.  Germany and Japan, examples often brought up by the right, were aggressive warmakers who were thoroughly defeated.  The people in those countries realized that they had blundered and that part of the consequences were new democratic governments set up by Allied forces.

      Iraq hadn't been attacking anybody, had no part in 9/11, therefore I understand by Iraqis would not be as thankful or understanding as Germans and Japanese circa 1945.

      •  Exactly! (none)
        Right wingers love this movie -- I do too -- and yet it explains perfectly why many Iraqis are fighting for independence.

        So often the hatred people project onto their chosen enemy is the result of a deep but shamefully guilt-ridden indentification with said enemy.

        If the freepers actually thought about anything for a moment instead of running their mouths off any chance they get, they might be horrified to realize that some of the Iraqi insurgents are only behaving exactly as they would if they were under the same circumstances.

        I say some of the insurgents because obviously, as in any war or forced occupation, there are elements who are fighting for very different goals, profiteers, jihadists, paid mercenarys, foreign agents, the cia, etc...

        ...and you can write that down, and put a dash in front of it, and put my name at the bottom.

        by deafmetal on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:53:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Many of us have had these thoughts (none)
    What would we do if it were us?

    Then again there are a few who might like it if the communists took us over.  

    Tired of the corporate DLC suck ups?WE'VE GOT DEANS BACK

    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:23:59 AM PDT

    •  What communists (none)
      The only totalitarian threat America faces these days is from the Taliban wing of the GOP.

      Wilbur from Charlotte's Web turned out okay, and he was just some pig. :)

      by cskendrick on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:26:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand your Question (none)
        I didn't say there was a serious threat, I said there are some people who might like being taken over by communists.
        Are you suggesting there are no communists in the world or in this country...serious threat or not?

        Tired of the corporate DLC suck ups?WE'VE GOT DEANS BACK

        by TeresaInPa on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:28:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pining for communist rule (none)
          Communist rule is totalitarianism.

          The only active, serious mode of totalitarianism these days is embedded in the Republican party.

          The only people who want totalitarian rule in the country and have even the slightest chance of obtaining it are embedded in the Republican party.

          By defintion, totalitarianism = communist rule.

          No questions

          I have no question at all about these matters.

          The Republican Party has been captured by right-wing totalitarians. Communists, by any other name.

          Wilbur from Charlotte's Web turned out okay, and he was just some pig. :)

          by cskendrick on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:32:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really (none)
            There are people who would like to be taken over by communists and they aren't republicans.  
            I don't see it happening.  But my statement was very simple, it's also true.  I think you read too much into it.

            Tired of the corporate DLC suck ups?WE'VE GOT DEANS BACK

            by TeresaInPa on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:42:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Speaking in generalities (none)
              We both are.

              I'm afraid if we're moving on to specific accusations, then we are going to have to deal in specifics.

              Who, exactly, is pining for Communist rule as you define it?

              I count zero so far. :)

              Wilbur from Charlotte's Web turned out okay, and he was just some pig. :)

              by cskendrick on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:46:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Why don't you stop insinuating... (none)
              ...and start accusing?

              If you want to express your opinion on "some people who would like to be taken over by communists and they aren't republicans" then do it, don't be a coward by trying to get us to guess who you're referring to without actually having to say something we can hold you to.

              Get a spine.

              ...and you can write that down, and put a dash in front of it, and put my name at the bottom.

              by deafmetal on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:40:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  To Theresa in Pa. (none)
       Yes, you have a point. I know China would do the snoopy dance. But then, they already own us economically as it is. So in a sense I guess a country doesn't have to drop bombs on another country to "occupy" it. I can't pick up anything without it saying "made in china" on the back of it. Talk about an occupation!
  •  Questions (none)
    (a) This looks like we can't find enough Iraqi account of the occupation, so we have to make up our own. I understand the impulse that led you to post this, but let's all try to get actual Iraqi accounts a little more often if that's what we find engaging?

    (b) In your "becoming" the enemy, does that include going to the city center and blowing up restaurants in which your fellow Americans eat? 7-11's? Will you strap a bomb on your chest and detonate around a wedding party or a funeral for another American? Of course many of the attacks in Iraq are against Americans, but many aren't. So in this hypothetical are you willing to kill far more Americans than occupiers?

    (c) Are you ready for the occupation to bring out armed racists, anti-semites, despots, and homophobes, all using the occupation as a chance to pull a powergrab? Are you ready to fight alongside, and in some cases to the expressed benefit of those who want liberation so that they might control America with their previously marginalized ideas?

    •  Reply (4.00)
      I'm not ready for any of that, nor do I ever hope to see it happen. It was merely a depiction of what could be if we follow the course we are on. Are you ready to then really stand up to those who are precipitiating this on both sides? I think that is the question that needs answering, because from where I am sitting, for all the talk about Bush and his cohorts and their "treasonable" actions, it sure doesn't look to me at this point that anything will come of it. That is why my thoughts turned to this.
    •  Answers (3.00)
      A) Strange how our western corporate media never seems to cover any Abu Ghraib released prisoner interviews or never lets Dahr Jamail and his  contrarian ilk on the Cable news channels (I guess they know best that Americans just aren't interested in such things). Also it is difficult to get western or mideastern reporters to get stories out when they are all getting shot to pieces whenever they get outside of the Green Zone. I think you are being  disengenuous (or you chug Bush/Neocon flavored koolaid by the gallon) to imply are not hearing Iraqi accounts because they are not happening.

      B) In war, terrible terrible  things are done all the time. This 60 year anniversary of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki mass noncombatant incinerations  and the Tokyo (Dresden for you Brits) civilian fire-storm bombings (which I doubt very much will be memorialized or even mentioned by our corporate propaganda media)   goes to show what level of horrible acts even Americans are capable of doing to innocent unaware women and children in  to win a fight on their terms.

      C)  You obviously have not been in the US if you are talking about point C as if it was in the possible future tense. Armed racists? Check!  Ant-semites? Whatever flavor of Semite (jew, arab, palestinian) you chose, there are plenty of haters of each of them in the Good old USA. We already have "democratic' despots/cronies and corporate criminals  by the boatload, controlling Washington and stealing US taxpayers (and probably voters)  blind. Same goes for the rest of your question c. Who knows will happen if the national nightmare of the past 5 years should continue for another 5-10 years.

      •  If I had said any of that, it'd be a problem... (none)
        (a) I would be disingenuous to imply that we're not hearing Iraqi accounts because they aren't happening. Thank God I didn't do that, huh? Thank God I just said we need to do more to find more actual accounts. Why did you distort my statement there and use your distortion to imply that I was a kool-aid drinking Bushite? Honestly, looks like malicious feigned stupidity to me.

        (b) Yeah, that killing innocents is fighting "on their terms" is exactly the problem. Whether American or insurgent, it's a problem. And killing fellow Americans to save America would be a problem. I note that here, as with all my questions, you don't actually answer. Would you undertake the tactics currently employed by the Iraqi insurgents? If yes, what does that say about you? And if no, what does that say about the insurgents?

        (c) Obviously I was talking about those haters getting disproportionate power because they happen to be the psychos with guns and explosives. Again you distort with apparent malice. The pre-existing terrorist groups in the United States would have the upper hand, and thus a certain leadership, within a nascent US insurgency. You chose to disregard my clear intent and make up some straw man who thinks those groups don't already exist in the US. Well, it's precisely because they already exist that I know they'd be a problem in a US insurgency. Do you honestly think their presence in the US insurgent movement wouldn't be a problem?

        •  Reply (none)
          Actually, you can find accounts of what is going on in Iraq if you go beyond the MSM in this country. It isn't hard to look up and find in a search engine. And I personally do believe the insurgency in this country would be a problem, and made up of every RW kook who could get his hand on a rifle who would probably care more about using them on those "damn liberals" who were so "soft on the terrorists," rather than those who actually occupied this country.

          That is why the point made here is that we as Americans need to ensure that never happens in this country by also tempering our own foreign policy with some sanity. In other words, occupying Iraq was a grave mistake we will pay for for decades to come whether we are physically occupied or not. For this war has now occupied a huge space where the soul of this nation once lived.

          •  I agree (none)
            Oh, I absolutely agree with you about both Iraqi accounts' availability and the need for vigilance in America. I'm just saying we should highlight those Iraqi accounts and that if we're going to think about the reality of a post-invasion America, it's interesting to really think about it in-depth and compare our expected reaction with those of the insurgents.
        •  Answers 2 (none)
          Please see below which addresses to some degree the substance of your reply.

          The main problem is that I don't accept your basic positions/premises (which is essentially a parroting of the Bush/neocon/corporate media propaganda message lines and assessments  of the Iraq occupation.

          I'm sorry, but I hear your basic position  any time I turn on Fox News to hear "Breaking News" and analysis of the Iraq. It is the same basic propaganda.

          •  What "propaganda" are you talking about? (none)
            What quotes from my comment above are parroting propaganda or Fox News' analysis? Sorry, but it looks like you're just slinking away from the questions with some hurried and unsupported insults.
            •  Alright. (none)
              Hold my hand and I will walk you through your Fox parroting statements:

              In your "becoming" the enemy, does that include going to the city center and blowing up restaurants in which your fellow Americans eat?

              This  statement presumes you know proof positive "the insurgents"  blew up the restaurants/711s. How do you know this?  Because Fox said so?

              Will you strap a bomb on your chest and detonate around a wedding party or a funeral [?]

              Not sure what you are referring to here. Is it the  Qaim wedding parties or the Afghan wedding parties (aka suspected Zarqawi safehouses if you listen to Fox News) that were "mistakenly bombed" by American forces?

              Likewise, re funerals, what proof positive (NOTE: not your personal preferences, or what Fox pumps into your TV) do you have of the specific identities of funeral/Shiite shrine/Jordan embassy/ Hilla City/UN office [july 2003]/Mansour area Baghdad restaurants (oopsy; Americans again) bombers in Iraq? And what about those  bodies killed execution-style and found floating down the rivers south of Baghdad in May or the mysterious "suicide bombings that turn out to not be suicide bombings but are seemed targeted to provoke civil war? No way it could be Salvadoran Option stuff you say, because you heard the insurgents did it on Fox?

              •  Morton's Demon (none)
                You act as if I'm going to be surprised America's done bad things in Iraq. I guess you imagine that if people don't believe your ridiculous innuendo they're employed by Fox News or something. I can dislike some American actions -- and acknowledge US-caused civilian deaths -- AND find the insurgents guilty of similar evils at the same time.

                Ok, I wasn't operating in the fantasy land you were so I see the confusion. Any info that contradicts your world view you dismiss. You have a Morton's Demon and cannot be dissuaded from your lunacy. I get it now. You're delusional and working backwards from your conclusions.

                For the sake of others:

                BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Insurgents fired mortar rounds at a funeral for the mother of one of Iraq's most senior police officials today, wounding 13 people, and the Shiite-led government pressed the need to open talks with insurgent groups. -AP
                BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide bomber detonated an ambulance Friday at a Shiite wedding party in a village south of Baghdad, killing at least seven people and injuring 16, hospital officials said. The bride and groom were among the injured, officials said.

                The Buamer tribe has had tense relations with Sunni Muslim clans in the area, local residents say, and several of their members have been killed or kidnapped by Sunni insurgents. -AP

                BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents intent on disrupting Iraq's election turned their firepower against Iraq's Shiite community yesterday, killing at least 22 in suicide bombings targeting a mosque and a wedding party.

                In a 90-minute audiotape posted on an Islamist Web site, a man claiming to be al-Zarqawi urged his followers to prepare for a long war against foreign forces in Iraq and accused Shiites of collaborating with U.S. troops in the assault against the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah in November. -Chicago Tribune

                Hey, you know fucking what, just check my Google search for "Insurgent Claims of Responsibility in Iraq". It should keep you busy since there are 92,600 hits...

                As far as your grave innuendo apparently suggesting that the US is behind the sectarian violence in the region. What can I say? That's a wholly unnecessary supposition and shows you know absolutely nothing. Read Juan Cole. Read anyone who knows. Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmens, Arabs, all of them have fringe elements that dislike groups. Kirkuk is especially volatile.

                Ah, but you have a way out, you have factless conspiracy theories on your side. No doubt the AP is a government operation just as Fox News was. No doubt the Chicago Tribune is also on the take. No doubt that Zarqawi and God knows who else are really employed by the USA. No doubt those people firing mortar rounds were really CIA agents. No doubt you'll find some way to weasel out of believing things that you find inconvenient and contradictory to your theory, whatever it may be.

                When it come down to it no proof would be good enough for you because you choose to explain away all proof with nonsensical conspiracys. Claims aren't good enough because the US faked them. Confessions are fake. Forensics are planted. Iraqi testimony about who's attacking them is coerced. Morton's. Fucking. Demon. You are possessed with it and it's pointless to argue with someone who has no standards and will reject all proof because it doesn't serve their fantasy. You are dedicated heart and soul to feigning and/or maintaining a near perfect ignorance so that you can continue to lie and theorize in a way that comforts you somehow.

                You know those creationists who think dinosaurs were put in the ground by God as a test? Yeah. Mirror image of you people.

                •  I don't claim to know the identities (none)
                  of the likely diverse and heterogeneous  parties behind the US Rumsfeldian labeled dead-ender terrorist insurgency(s).

                  Perhaps you, like Bush, have a 'stovepipe' to God, and can divine precisely who is doing the killing, and for what exact reasons. If so please give me real evidence, not Cable News script.

  •  Well I wouldn't for the former prez (none)
    That's for sure.

    Let's get that cleared up from the start.

    But I would work to make the occupation as unprofitble as possible to those who set up shop here without asking for an invite, no matter what their intentions.

    I suspect that the intentions of any self-nominating conqueror are rarely good ones.

    Wilbur from Charlotte's Web turned out okay, and he was just some pig. :)

    by cskendrick on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:25:15 AM PDT

  •  Excellent and chilling. (none)
    What a great way to give people perspective.

    What's that burning smell? And who's playing that fiddle?

    by Arken on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:26:15 AM PDT

  •  What would I do? (none)

       I am the one "shocked" and "awed"! Exactly what I've been thinking! WHY can some not SEE this? Excellent!
  •  Open arms and flowers, of course (4.00)

    One of the fundemental ideological problems with the conservative agenda is that they fail to see anything through someone else's perspective.

    P.U.R.P.L.E. (Peace, Unity, Respect, Positivity, Love, Equality)

    by dugjxn on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:30:39 AM PDT

  •  I'm guessing many of us would (none)
    Team up with with the motherfuckers from redstate and free republic, strap explosives to ourselves, and find somebody to hunt.

    It's my hunch that the super passionate on both sides don't really like taking shit from anybody when push comes to shove.  I might be wrong.

    I am so far to the left I can almost see the right again.

    by beagleandtabby on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:37:16 AM PDT

  •  Churchill (none)
    remarked that you can always take one with you, which is perhaps a statistical observation.  One of the more distinguished Japanese armies in the last war said that occupying America would be extremely unpleasant, because there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass.  On the other hand, Americans are somewhat underarmed relative to Iraqis.

    Expect a vigorous computer disk trade in old Paladin Press and Loompanics books on construction of high explosives and automatic weapons that that guiding friend of the first amendment Dianne Feinstein tried to ban, not to mention such titles as (iirc) "Kitchen Improved Plastic Explosives".

    Americans as a group are technically creative, and are backed by the resources of an extremely wealthy country in which large numbers of people have machine shops in their basements, not to mention a vigorous and entrepreneurial population that will be happy to run the drugs for guns trade, not to mention extremely large numbers of veterans who fought in winning armies that used successful small unit tactics.

    Let us say that if I were the occupying Grand Moff, I would really really not want to set up in a "Green Zone", not unless I were really really confident that I had mapped out all the urban tunnels (old cities have lots of these) and had excellent seismographic scans of the perimeter, failing which someone might blow up my green zone from below.

  •  German and Japanese cities flattened - (none)
    millions of Germans and Japanese killed. However, citizens and officials cooperated with American occupation and implemented American made plans. Germany and Japan recovered and become prosperous democratic countries.

    South Korea accepted American presence, ideas, and policies and became prosperous.

    Vietnam fought off Americans troops and ideas and remained poor and backward.

    •  Germans and Japanese (none)
      accepted American occupation because they lost the war. US failed to defeat Vietnam and there exist no equation which suggests American Occupation = Prosperity.
      •  American occupation reduced the need for defense (none)
        expenditures. Japan and Germany could and did pour freed up money into education and other social investment programs. Plug about five percent of GDP a year into the equation of your economic model.  
        •  Neither (none)
          Germany nor Japan lost those war because they needed money to spend more on education and social investment programs. Your logic is convoluted. US needed bases in these defeated countries and everything turned out well. US , on the other hand, set up bases in Saudi Arabia during last decade and it has been a clusterfuck.
          •  Logic dictated by facts (none)
            1. Japan attacked US and declared war on US
            2. US declared state of war
            3. Germany declared war on US
            4. US beat Germany
            5. US beat Japan

            Japan was trying to break oil sanctions. Japan had invaded China and the US arranged to cut off the oil supply to Japan so Japanese tanks and airplanes wouldn't be able to fight. Japan wasn't trying to get occupied.

            Germany was simply upholding a treaty between Japan, Italy, and itself. Germany wasn't trying to get occupied.

            You are correct in saying that neither country was trying to get occupied.

            Extensive searches have shown that Iraq was not a danger to the United States before the war.

            Extensive searches have shown that the United States was not in imminent danger of attack from Iraq.

            Most Americans do not understand why America attacked Iraq. However, let me give an analogy. Pretend that I've got a harmless plastic toy gun and have put on a teeshirt that says Harmless Toy Gun in big bright red letters. Let me then stand outside a government office building or abortion clinic, or follow a presidential candidate around. Let me assure you that it will not be long before the the forces of the law deal with me.

            The law will act even though I would not be an actual or imminent danger to anybody.

            The law will act because I am pretending to pose an excessive threat.

            The US military acted in Iraq because Saddam played a game of pretending to pose an excessive threat with his well staffed nuclear and biological weapon development organizations and mock inspection evasions.

            The US military also acted because Saddam undermined the ability to determine actual danger or its imminence.

            I had simply offered up the opinion that Germans and Japanese came to prosper under occupation even though the process of becoming occupied was very destructive and not a goal.

            America now spends $500,000,000,000 a year on what is called national defense. Many people think that America would be better off making more social investments like Germany or more industrial investments like Japan. Some people think Germany and Japan got a free ride off American defense spending.

            In response to the original post, I can say as a theoretically occupied citizen that killing my local police would not be a rational response. I certainly wouldn't kill twenty of my countrymen for each occupier killed.

    •  Are you trying to JUSTIFY... (none)
      ...American occupation?

      Are you in the right place?

      Do you think the end always justifies the means?

      ...and you can write that down, and put a dash in front of it, and put my name at the bottom.

      by deafmetal on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:33:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't like the occupation, (none)
        but I am very uncomfortable with the prospect of thugs [that don't show respect for Iraqi lives] taking over Iraq.

        I have called for the Arab League or the United Nations to take over in Iraq from the US and I repeat that call now.

        I would be willing to support a US pullout if attacks on Iraqis cease for six months or drop to levels considered acceptable by the Iraqi legislature.

        I also don't care for American troops in Japan or Germany [even if Germany or Japan now pay most of the costs].

        South Korea can take care of itself in my opinion.


  •  Sympathy for the insurgents? Hell no! (2.00)
    Um...where can I start? The insurgents are murdering far more Iraqis than Americans, and they don't want to "liberate" Iraq in any sense of the word. The insurgency might be a plague we've introduced to Iraq and allowed -- even encouraged! -- to fester. But it's sure as hell not the cure for anything.

    Has your disgust with Bush left you with no moral compass at all? The insurgents aren't trying to make Iraq better, and they're not liberators in any sense of the word. They're murderous criminals. Sure, Bush is an incompetent ideologue who's caused nothing but disaster, but you talk about the insurgency like it's using the tactics of civil disobedience!

    These killers employ suicide bombers against each other in thinly-disguised ethnic warfare. They also target their own government and infrastructure in the hopes of making Iraqis even more desperate, and hence more willing to put their fates in the hands of fanatical militias. The insurgents are not trying to destroy America. They are trying to destroy the Iraqi government, clearing the way for their own ascension to power.

    Unlike us, the insurgents know America will not be around forever, and they're preparing for civil war. They're ruthless criminals. Your fantasy of a principled resistance bears no relation to reality.

    We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

    by Valentine on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:01:43 AM PDT

    •  Wars follow their (none)
      own logic. Insurgents are fighting a war so are the US troops. Expecting a moral compass in a war is an exhibition of one's ignorance of history and warfare. No war in the history of mankind has been fought with moral means.
    •  Reply (4.00)
      I don't know if you are responding to me, but if you are I don't know where the hell you get the idea that I stated that any sort of insurgency was "principled." If you read what I wrote, I stated I would hate myself for what I would do in that case clearly BECAUSE it would be unprincipled.

      Those in Iraq who are residents of that country fighting to get it back (and don't even try to tell me there aren't any) are doing so I believe in many instances because they believe there is no other way based on the still ONGOING MILITARY occupation of their country, even after giving them "sovereignty" and a bogus election.

      And while I agree that there are factions there who clearly are vying for power with no regard for their own people, that simply explains in greater detail that what we are being told by this administration is a bald face LIE.

      •  Your soul-searching is not a universal truth... (none)
        That's exactly what I'm talking about. In your fantasy, above, the insurgents and their supporters are crying themselves to sleep every night over the inherent injustices and contradictions of their actions. That's not at all evident. I think that's you, and not them.

        When I read the opinions of civilian Iraqis, they seem to pretty much hate the insurgents. Frankly, I think there was a lot of hope immediately after the war that America would be able to repair Iraq's infrastructure and impart to it our liberal institutions. People do want to be free, you know. But we failed in that task. The thing is, ordinary folks want to be safe. They want not to be shot and killed. They don't believe in us anymore, and they're looking for anyone who can restore an order under which they can survive -- illiberal and cruel though it may be. If giving aid to the insurgency keeps them safer from the insurgency than giving aid to the Americans keeps them safe from the Americans, well, we're going to "lose the battle for the hearts and minds," so to speak. But that doesn't give the insurgents one thin sliver of an excuse for murdering and destroying their own country. And your efforts to empathize with that mindset leave me quite confused as to your purpose. Are you trying to say American civilians are no more principled than Iraqi civilians? Well, no shit, of course we're not. Under similar (if hard-to-imagine) circumstances, we'd spawn bombers and beheaders just like theirs. But if you're trying to say that the actions of the bombers and beheaders are somehow justified or forgiven by America's provocations, I think you're mistaking who the insurgents are, and what they're fighting for. Not only are they the bad guys, they're the worse-than-us-guys, and recognizing that is part of being a responsible liberal.

        If I were an Iraqi civilian, I would be furious and frustrated with America -- but I would never, for a moment, offer aid or support to criminals who were bombing Iraq's police stations and behading foreign envoys and generally raising fiery Hell. Perhaps I read you wrong, but I feel like you were saying you'd be a sympathizer. Well, I wouldn't. And I think that's worth saying, too.

        The civilians of Iraq want the insurgency gone just as badly as we do -- hell, a lot WORSE than we do -- and I don't feel your empathy recognizes that. I think you're projecting a myth of the American Revolution onto the Iraqi insurgency that does the Iraqis a disservice. I think you're totally wrong about where and why the insurgency gets its popular support, and I think you're not recognizing the sad and scary fact that the insurgency is a much greater threat to Iraq's future than America. We will leave. The dictators and jihadis will not.

        Let me put it simply: no, I would not murder Americans to express my anger towards an occupying army. No, no, a million fucking times no, I would never murder civilians for such reasons, nor would I for a moment support anyone who executed the kind of attacks that the Iraqi insurgents have executed against their own folk. You may feel empathy towards the insurgents, but I do not. Not for a moment. And I believe your effort to empathize with callous and maniacal murderers is misguided.

        But I also think it springs from good intentions, and from a deep understanding that America has done irreparable harm to Iraq, and that the hatred many Iraqis feel towards America is well-deserved. I don't think you're wrong about anything except the character of the bombers and beheaders, and even there, I suspect you're wrong because you want to believe the best of people, and because it's hard to believe that Iraq is plagued by home-grown vultures who want to pick apart its corpse regardless of what America does. I hope it's possible to forcefully disagree with your depiction of the insurgency, which I think is terribly wrong, without giving the impression that I support Bush and his mad moronic schemes. I even agree when you say that America would probably rip itself apart in a similar situation. But I'd be fighting against the murder of Americans by Americans until somebody shot me down. And I hope you would be, too.

        We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

        by Valentine on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 02:18:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To Valentine (none)
          Firstly, I think it is you who are confusing the terrorists who slipped across the border with who I am talking about and depicting in my diary. I also do not believe you will find any symptathy for those who kill civilians, and especially not terrorists who crawl across the border simply to take advantage of the chaos. As a amtter of fact, that wasn't evenmentioned her by me.  

          To be totally honest, I don't truly know  how far I would or could go should I find myself living in a country occupied like Iraq is now, and that is the point, because if you face reality, you really don't know based on the circumstances how you would really react either.

          I do know this much. I would fight with all of my being to get the occupiers out, and to be honest, if I saw Americans consorting with the enemy to keep the occupiers there, or terrorists coming in simply to take advantage of the situation, I would defend my country first. I know more than likely it would make me a very ugly person (but at least I can admit that), and that is why I believe the moral of what was written here needs to be addressed in context to what we allowed to take place in Iraq.

          Let me finish by saying that while I respect your opinion, your insinuations about me are way off base.

          •  Eh.... (none)
            ...I don't mean to insinuate anything about you, merely to disagree with what you write. I still say that murdering innocents (or "sympathizers" or "collaborators" or whatever-the-fuck) is nothing more or less than murder, plain and simple, and that defending my idea of America will always take a lower precedence for me than defending the lives of individuals who ought to have the right to live and love as well as anyone else.

            Murder, for me, is not a valid channel for political expression. And I can't conceive of any excuse for the murder of the Iraqi police, especially. Whenever I read an account of a police recruiting station being bombed, it breaks my fucking heart, because Iraq needs nothing now so much as it needs Iraqi police who are willing to defend the rule of civil order against the rule of brutal strength.

            I believe that most Iraqis are not motivated by a nationalist desire to "kick the devil Americans out," but a much simpler desire to do honest work and live in peace, and I do think it's our responsibility to leave the country in some sort of order, if we can. Civil war is brutal and horrible. And we're not the only people who can hurt the Iraqis. Not at all.

            Anyway, I'm a "patriot for Al Gore" too, so I'm sure we have more in common than not. Peace and all that.

            We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

            by Valentine on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 03:41:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  In an occupied America... (4.00)
      ...insurgents would not only kill the occupiers but also any American consorting with the enemy and many "innocents" would be killed on busses, trains, and in buildings.

      There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable.--Howard Zinn, U.S. historian

      by sweettp2063 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:41:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Example of person addicted to Neocon Koolaid? (none)
      First off, unless you are one of the combatant parties in Iraq, you (or we) have no objective verifiable way of knowing who is doing the killing or why.

      Their is very little independently confirmable in depth investigative news, especially of the atrocities, the bombings, the journalist/humanitarian/politician killings that escapes the country. And even when well done thorough pieces occasionally get out (Democracy Now stuff, Fisk and  Dahr Jamail reports) they are shunned by the corporate press.    

      Ever hear of the Salvador Option?

      Guerilla wars are dirty wars. (Not as dirty as Hiroshima/Nagasaki,where 200,000 women, children and old men were incinerated 60 yrs ago on two sunny August mornings, but that is another story]. If you were homeland resistance force  trying to throw out the foreign occupiers, it would make perfect strategic sense to attack the occupiers' proxy forces and security infrastructure in order to scare away the puppets (British loyalists, Vichy stooges,  whatever term you prefer) and force the foreign occupiers out of their relatively safe forts  to take over the security/infrastucture maintanence jobs their Vichy puppets  were supposed to be doing before they were scared off, thus making the foreign army more exposed and vulnerable to attack.  

      Remember, the corporate media are not your friend. They are overwhelmingly Bush/neocon mouthpieces.


  •  Wolverines!! (none)
    Time to watch my copy of Red Dawn.

    "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" -George Washington

    by House on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:08:38 AM PDT

  •  Sigh... It's already gone... (none)
    This diary has already scrolled off the new diaries list.

    Doomed to dissapear without a trace!

    It's a shame, I'd really like to see more discussion on this topic.

    Thanks anyway.

    ...and you can write that down, and put a dash in front of it, and put my name at the bottom.

    by deafmetal on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:07:11 AM PDT

  •  What makes you think (4.00)
    What makes you think America isn't occupied, kimosabe?
Click here for the mobile view of the site