MarkHumphrys.com

Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-West. Pro-Israel.

Home      Blog      Contents      Contact


This site is banned in Iran
Search:

    

170,000 page views per month


Politics - Iraq - The liberation of 2003 - The guerilla war since 2003


  The Iraqi "resistance"

"Anti-war" protests after liberation

The debate continues - What is the lesson of Iraq?

How to lose in Iraq

How to win in Iraq

Victory in Iraq



Iraq - The guerilla war since 2003

In March 2003, America and its allies invaded Iraq. In April 2003, the regime fell. The moral responsibility for all deaths in the war lies with the fascist regime for resisting Iraq's liberation.

Since April 2003, the forces of state tyranny and religious oppression have fought a sporadic violent guerilla campaign to try to stop freedom and democracy coming to Iraq. The moral responsibility for all deaths since the war lies with the fascist resistance for resisting the introduction of democracy.

As Bruce Thornton says, Bush and Blair should not feel guilty about trying to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq. If it fails, it will be the fault of the Iraqi resistance and its allies, not of anybody who has good intentions. Thornton (not without sadness) criticises the idea that people are logical and will do what is in their own interest: "every page of history proves that people are much more than machines or clever chimps. Humans have at their heart a mystery that defies predictive science: the freedom to choose even what makes them miserable simply because they can choose. It is our quirky unpredictability, our conflicting passions, our contradictory goods, and our willful desire to choose freely that sends all the experts' schemes to the devil. Just look at Iraq for all the evidence you need. The bloody disorder there is not a consequence of Bush's ineptitude or some better plan that wasn't tried. Ultimately, the mess in Iraq reflects the disordered souls of a critical mass of Iraqis who prefer allegiance to tribal loyalties or a dysfunctional faith to freedom and security."

All is not lost yet. This vicious and disgusting minority need not win. But if they do, blame them, not anyone else.



After liberation in 2003

Having lost the war, the enemies of the Iraqi people are desperate for the Saddam butchers and foreign Islamofascists to claw something back.

Refugees




The "anti-war" demos carry on (after the liberation of Iraq)

The "anti-war" protests carried on even after they lost the war!


The "anti-war" demos of Nov 2003


The Stop the War Coalition and the SWP (UK)



Hezbollah flag wavers at Stop The War Coalition march, Sept 2006.
"Anti-war" my foot.
From here.



Steven Vincent


The "anti-war" demos of Mar 2005

In March 2005, 2 years after they lost the war, the "anti-war" protesters are still marching!
You lost. Saddam is gone. He's not coming back. History is moving on. You lost. Go home.



The debate continues - What is the lesson of Iraq?

The disgusting violence unleashed by jihadists and Baathists after liberation in 2003 has caused both left and right to construct new arguments.

The right thinks that the lesson of Iraq is that you should not bother trying to liberate Arabs and Muslims, because they do not want to be free. You should destroy regimes that threaten you, and then get out.

The left thinks the lesson of Iraq is that the Iraq War was immoral, and the allies should feel guilty in some way for what they did. The left also thinks the violence proved that the anti-war protesters (many of whom supported the violence) were right. To me, this is just saying: If evil triumphs, then evil was right and those who opposed evil were wrong.





The Iraqi "resistance" (separate page)




How to lose in Iraq




How to win in Iraq



Roland Shirk expresses how I feel, that the Iraqis disgraced themselves after 2003. They were not the same as the people living under communism, who wanted freedom. The Iraqis did not want freedom. Or at least, not enough of them did:
"The Poles sought liberation from an oppressive occupying regime because it trampled individual liberties and imposed artificial poverty. No doubt, they would have welcome a successful foreign invasion that gave them free elections and a free economy. (Even prickly France was briefly grateful when we showed up in 1944.) The Arabs of Iraq responded by turning on their liberators and each other, turning their purgatorial country into a hell of interreligious violence. Does Cohen blame them, or draw from this experience any conclusions about the Arab world or Islam? No, he excuses them all, implicitly, by noting that a foreign invasion offended "Arab pride.""
Shame on the Iraqis for what they did after liberation in 2003. There were exceptions. But not enough of them.



Return to Iraq.



Feedback form

 
Enter a URL for me to look at:
Enter this password:

See explanation. You cannot enter comments or send email. All you can do is enter a web address (a URL) for me to look at. You can put your comments at that address.

Politics      Religion      Politics feeds      Religion feeds      Maps

Bookmark and Share           Since 1995.