Who's got a stronger case for freedom?

[cut]

I just thought of this, out of the coalition and the insurgents who has the stronger case for freedom?

The insurgents after all want foreign forces out of their country, surely freedom can be freedom to make your own mistakes. Where as the CPA is saying they are not ready to give iraqis their choice/representation (freedom) yet. The coaltion is not handing over power yet and as long as there are troops in the country can they be said to be totally free?

Just a thought, not an accusation, so think about it and maybe how we could overcome this before dismissing it.

[duck]

Let's see: Coalition troops decide to call it quits and leave Iraq by the end of April.

Soon afterwards, grand Ayatollah Sistani is killed in a bomb explosion during a sermon. Al-Sadr declares himself the new Shia leader and a bloody internal feud begins across the south of Iraq.

At the same time, Baghdad witnesses daily skirmishes between Sunni and Shia militias. The former compensate their smaller numbers by including large numbers of NCOs and officers from Saddam's army and intelligence services. Baghdad is divided and descends into chaos just as Beirut did during the civil war in Lebanon.

In the north Turkey invades the Kurdish areas with some 50.000 troops "to protect the Turkmen population" and forestall unrest in Turkish Kurdistan.

And this is just the beginning...

[cut]

true but look at it the other way round, insugent leaders imprisoned or knock off (possibly also blown up?).

Sistani still gets killed, the coalition can't protect him forever, etc...

when there is a handover of power and the new government is installed, after we leave there is still the possibility of a coup against the "coalition approved government" as happened last time round, 70 years ago.

Anyway that's not where I'm trying to go, a withdrawl is not realistic at least not in the forseeable future.

I was thinking more about, what we are fighting for, I wouldn't say we the invasion was a war against terrorism, but then again the "invasion war" is over, that was the war for iraqi freedom, in other words to oust Saddam Hussein, the situation after the war meant that it was impossible to do so, remember the lack of the expect show of support from shias?

I suggest that now, the war has become part of the war on terror, due to the influx of foreign "jihadist", but also and more importantly because of the recent Sadr "uprising". So freedom is no longer the real factor, the real goal is to safeguard future of Iraq and Iraqis. And obviously also to keep relations good, economic and political, because after all if that wasn't the case why get rid of Saddam?

[Kenshin]

I think theyre case is not freedom but that Sadr guy just wants to make sure he gets the whole pie.

He is listed as among the potential leaders of IRaq when the coalition leaves by June, and he is taking steps that'll make sure hes the one. He took a first move by droping one of his priest rivals. Never thought that he will be caught, he starts a jihad.

This is just a case of an a**hole having a place in the pulpit.

[Garibaldi]

Freedom has two definitions: "the state of being free, not being under control" and "the power to do, say, think or write whatever one wants to do". In that sense, I think the insurgents have a stronger case (and I mean people who grabs a rifle to fight occupation troops and not terrorist who blow themselves amid hundreds of worshipers in a mosque, trying to kill as many as they can) because they are defending their right of not being under control of a foreign force IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
I think it´s contradictory to try to impose freedom and democracy by force. That´s the argument every dictatorship in the world used to justify its action: "in order to establish freedom and democracy, we will suspend it".
It´s sad, because I sincerely think that 99% of the coalition soldiers that are fighting there believe the are working to make a better Irak and to make iraquis free. But I also think their government is just protecting political and economic interests, which are not always linked to a true free Irak. Remember that back in ´83, Saddams rule suited american interests in order to avoid the Islamic revolution to spread, and they backed him providing him with arms (even chemical weapons!) and money. Was he "democratic" by that time? Of course not. He was already a brutal dictator.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Seems to me there's not much of an argument to be made as to which choice would give Iraqis more freedom. Discounting for the moment any civil war(s) that may erupt - the choices would be between:

1. a democratic Iraqi government where the people have a voice it their future or

2. a Taliban-like government run by the Jihadis.

Can anybody look back at Afghanistan under the Taliban & argue that the people were "free"?

Let there be no doubt - a radical Islamist state is exactly what the Jihadis are fighting for. It has nothing to do with "liberating" anybody- it's about giving power & a home to the Jihadis & their leaders.

[cut]

Freedom has two definitions: "the state of being free, not being under control" and "the power to do, say, think or write whatever one wants to do". In that sense, I think the insurgents have a stronger case (and I mean people who grabs a rifle to fight occupation troops and not terrorist who blow themselves amid hundreds of worshipers in a mosque, trying to kill as many as they can) because they are defending their right of not being under control of a foreign force IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
I think it´s contradictory to try to impose freedom and democracy by force. That´s the argument every dictatorship in the world used to justify its action: "in order to establish freedom and democracy, we will suspend it".
It´s sad, because I sincerely think that 99% of the coalition soldiers that are fighting there believe the are working to make a better Irak and to make iraquis free. But I also think their government is just protecting political and economic interests, which are not always linked to a true free Irak. Remember that back in ´83, Saddams rule suited american interests in order to avoid the Islamic revolution to spread, and they backed him providing him with arms (even chemical weapons!) and money. Was he "democratic" by that time? Of course not. He was already a brutal dictator.

great answer! thank you..

so the US can offer freedom now and freedom in a few years
where as those who want the coalition out of iraq want freedom now but as for wether they will produce freedom is possible but not looking hopeful.

simple, sort of..

[Garibaldi]

Freedom has two definitions: "the state of being free, not being under control" and "the power to do, say, think or write whatever one wants to do". In that sense, I think the insurgents have a stronger case (and I mean people who grabs a rifle to fight occupation troops and not terrorist who blow themselves amid hundreds of worshipers in a mosque, trying to kill as many as they can) because they are defending their right of not being under control of a foreign force IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
I think it´s contradictory to try to impose freedom and democracy by force. That´s the argument every dictatorship in the world used to justify its action: "in order to establish freedom and democracy, we will suspend it".
It´s sad, because I sincerely think that 99% of the coalition soldiers that are fighting there believe the are working to make a better Irak and to make iraquis free. But I also think their government is just protecting political and economic interests, which are not always linked to a true free Irak. Remember that back in ´83, Saddams rule suited american interests in order to avoid the Islamic revolution to spread, and they backed him providing him with arms (even chemical weapons!) and money. Was he "democratic" by that time? Of course not. He was already a brutal dictator.

great answer! thank you..

so the US can offer freedom now and freedom in a few years
where as those who want the coalition out of iraq want freedom now but as for wether they will produce freedom is possible but not looking hopeful.

simple, sort of..

You are absolutely right.
Let´s suppose the actual uprise dies off. The country is pacified. The coalition hands the governement to the Iraqui authority. There are elections and Al-Sistani wins by 55% of the votes, and his first actions in office are to transform Iraq into an Islamic state like Iran. They have majority in congress (or similar), so they imposse it. It will be undoubtdely a decision taken by democratically elected authorities but, Would it ensure freedom for all? I don´t think so.
Think of another scenario. Someone (no matter who) is elected in Iraq. Then that government decides to cut by 90% it´s oil exports to the U.S. and to cut contracts of american companies in the Iraq like Halliburton, etc. Would that "freedom of action" be tollerated by the american government or the american companies? Remember that in Chile in ´73 the U.S. government suportted Pinochet´s military coup against an ellected president because Chile nationalized the copper industry. An industry that was being ruled by american companies like ITT, etc.
It´s a very complicated situation in Iraq, indeed.