Originally Posted by SDW2001
Where to begin? You're asking what's different, and I'll tell you:
1. The US is deploying a uniformed army. BIG difference there.
Actually no - the US appears
to solely run a uniformed army but in reality it funds many guerilla outfits and has done so for decades. These are the US army by proxy. And that is aside from Special forces undertaking Black Ops who might disguise themselves as 'terrorists' in order to commit acts which would be unacceptable to the populace back home as well as to achieve specific goals and demonize the enemy.
Right now for example the CIA is running and funding the terrorist group the MEK in support of their terror bombing campaign in Iran.
2. One can only assume you're referencing Iraq. As an aside...don't dance around it...just say it...you mean Iraq, we all know it. But back to the point: Saying the Iraq war was "illegal" is and always has been a dubious point. "International Law" is really a misnomer, and is subject to many different interpretations. Kofi Annan, your hero, feels the war was illegal. Many others do not. The UN never passed any resolution condemning our invasion, so it would seem that you're on the short end of that stick.
Wrong. It was a general example. I think you need to get this Iraq obsession looked at.
3. What "nefarious acitvities" are you referring to? Trying to keep civilians and themselves from being blown up? Now, if US troops are suspected of raping and pillaging, that's something different. That's clearly a crime, or crimes.
Well, of course there are the run of the mill ubiquitous war crimes which happen on a regular basis...rape, murder, torture, theft on a massive scale etc - but I was thinking more of Operations such as dressing up as Arabs and planting bombs or impersonating al Qaeda and carrying out 'terrorist operations' such as is a favourite activity of the British and no doubt the US too.
4. Did someone vote these "freedom fighters" legitimate governmental powers? Under what authority do they operate and speak/act for the populace?
Yes. Hamas. Yes. Ahmedinejad (assuming for arguments sake he is behind the insurgency as you believe - although this view is obviously lunacy).
Actually, I think you don;t really care whether the populace votes them in - if they vote someone the US doesn't like then the results just get ignored and sanctions applied. Viva Democracy!!!!
The problem is Seg, like many liberals, you get yourself so twisted up in your own arguments for and against, that you can no longer make basic (and simple) distinctions. For example, how do terror suspects differ from US troops? What makes their activities and possible detention different? These are easily answered questions for most, but not for you. There is no valid or reasonable comparison betweent the activities of a nation's armed forces and those of terrorists. Of course, you'll point to truly unjust occupations, such as the occupation of France and Poland in WWII, but one would hope that even you would not be comparing our current actions in Iraq to such obvious empire building.
I think I have had occasion to state before that I am not a liberal in the Political sense. True, I am sexually liberal and have virtually no morals that so-called Christian God-fearing folk would recognize as such but I detest the left almost as much as I detest the right. More in many ways.
It's just that I cannot bring myself to rant against the left when there are so many wingers out there doing the same. It seems somehow......unclean.