If your country was occupied, would you resist? And by what means?

Question

Do the Iraqis have the right to resist the US Occupation that was not endorsed by the UN and was not provoked by ANY hostile actions against the US by Iraq after ten years of embargo? and if they have that right which methods do you think is the best (political talks- demonstarions - strikes - fighting ... etc).

Answer 1

Yes, I would. I believe that Iraqis DO have the right to resist Us occupation, I believe resistance is a legal right to all occupied countries and nations.

I think the best method is fighting the enemy's troupes ONLY, unlike what some Iraqis are doing over there. However, I think media is very important in wars. International political talks can do really good, letting the whole world know about your case..

Answer 2

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Including the Iraqi people. Being an American, I'd go with fighting.

The Iraqi people are not the ones fighting the US and Coalition Forces in Iraq though, the Insurgents are. People from outside Iraq came in and are attacking the US and Coalition Forces, hence the name Insurgents. Iraqi people are being killed in schools, police stations, military recruiting facilities and schools. The insurgents do not want to see a free and democratic government in Iraq. It might make the people in surrounding countries see how much better it is to live free and not oppressed lives, and that might spur revolutions in those other countries.

I just answered a question on the G8, and I rediscovered an important fact about the United States and countries that it has fought and helped to rebuild. Japan, Germany, United Kingdom and France are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th largest economies in the world. US is ovbiously the largest. What are the chances that Iraq, a potentially rich oil nation will come out of this on the plus side economically... High plus side? I'd wager that it will come out very well. This of course depends on if the people retain the power once this whole deal is over after their government is fully in place and in control. If they can fend off another dictator's attempt to rule with an iron fist. Just comes down to keeping the insurgents in check and leaveing Iraq in capable Iraqi hands.

Answer 3

At this point anybody who opposes what we are doing in Iraq is also opposing the will of the Iraqi people.

First of all you are working form a false assumption. Specifically that the Iraqis are resisting an occupation.

Even a cursory study of political events in Iraq indicate that the people doing the fighting are fighting to install themselves as dictators.

The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi people have voted in 2 UN certified elections and one UN certified referendum to choose how they want to govern themselves.

Answer 4

The invasion was endorsed by the UN, go check your facts. They were none too happy that we moved so quickly, but go reread the resolutions & when they were passed. The embargo you speak of was created by the UN, and simply says Saddam had to prove he'd destroyed his WMD for it to be lifted. Doing so would have prevented this war, doing so could have lifted that embargo 10 years ago. All they had to do was verify the weapons were no more.

Now to insurgency. Our troops are guests of the Iraqi Govt & will LITERALLY leave the very day they ask us to OR the day we determine they are capable of defending themselves internally/externally w/o our help. If the insurgents wish to get us out of the country, all they have to do is help drive out al queada & vote for a govt that will get strong fast & ask us to leave. Not very hard & quickly done if they'd cooperate. They've been fooled by propoganda that tells them we want to take over their country, settle american families there, & steal all their oil while giving them nothing in return but the same genocide & oppression Saddam gave them. If that were true of course they'd have reason to rebel, but right now we're locked in a PR campaign as much as a military one.

Answer 5

Ummm...the Iraqi people don't want to resist our occupation there. We freed them from Saddam Husseins sick regime, and they are thankful. The terrorists (Islamic insurgents) are the ones fighting us, and wreaking havoc on the Iraqi people. These insurgents don't want a democratic Iraq, that would throw a monkey wrench into their plans. To them, we are all infidels that must be wiped off the face of the earth...in their minds, only their kind have worth. Pretty sick thought process.

Answer 6

If I were in their position, I would say yes -- unequivocally. Any form of non-violent resistance will do.

The situation on the ground seems different however. It is perceived that most of the resistance in Iraq is coming from those opposed to the US per se and not its occupation (it's convincing sicne the US has stated that it WILL leave and that it;s just a matter of time). It is not coming from any sense of nationalism but from radical anti-US sentiment.

And that seems to be the difference between Iraq and Vietnam, whose citizens were pro-nationalistic rather than anti-US (they fought the French also, remember?)

Answer 7

i would only resist if i would be less free as a result of the outcome of the occupation.

the iraqi people will be more free as a result of the occupation. unfortunately, freedom has not been a part of their culture for a long time. certainly all will be better off in the future.

Answer 8

Anyone who's seen what the US military is prepared to do in the name of domination will think twice before resisting. The occasional ambush is not going to send them packing. The only effective weapon is the camera.

Answer 9

Yes of course! By any means possible!! whenever possible!!! Although there is not a time that is impossible to resist illegal occupation.

Answer 10

Well, let's see... a foreign army invades your country and breaks all your sh*t.

No, they shouldn't resist. They should just lie down and take it up the A$$ by the 75 foot non-skid dildo. And I'm talking girth not length.