Thank You America

The rest of the paragraph you quoted is basically my response to your point here.

Yes but your hypothetical situation didn't include the fact that the goverment created the criminal that robbed the store...

It seems fairly logical to me, if you go to war with a country and then occupy it, then casulties caused resisting this occupation are directly the fault of the occupiers. There would be no force resisting the occupiers if the occupiers weren't there, thus the harm they cause is the direct fault of the occupiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

It seems fairly logical to me, if you go to war with a country and then occupy it, then casulties caused resisting this occupation are directly the fault of the occupiers. There would be no force resisting the occupiers if the occupiers weren't there, thus the harm they cause is the direct fault of the occupiers.

---

Many or most of these forces aren't ''resisting the occupiers'', they are trying to carve out a power niche (which they would have done upon any dismantling of the Saddam dictatorship, unless another dictatorship had been immediately installed). Secondly, now that Iraqis have their own government and a large control over their own fate it isn't really an occupation anymore. Also, you're ignoring this little thing called personal responsibility - it is entirely the choice of these individual groups to take up arms or not. Either way, you can be upset at the failures in providing security, but you can't blame the security for the criminal.

Many or most of these forces aren't ''resisting the occupiers'', they are trying to carve out a power niche (which they would have done upon any dismantling of the Saddam dictatorship, unless another dictatorship had been immediately installed).

Much of thier justification and recruitment comes directly from the occupiers, the fact they guys on top are in it for themselves is not the point, the reason they are able to carve out thier own niche is because they are resisting the occupiers, even if its only for thier own interests. If we had not intervened the Dictatorship would have continued, not that this a good thing but we had no good reason to go there and a few good reasons not to.

Of course we could have also intervened but had an actual plan for running the country and adequate troops to do the job, if we had been prepared from the start we may have avoided a whole lot of casulties...

Either way, you can be upset at the failures in providing security, but you can't blame the security for the criminal.

You can blame the 'security' when they are the whole reason that the person is a criminal, no 'security' no criminal, thus the security is directly to blame for the criminal.

[QUOTE=LittleGrizzly;2299176]Many or most of these forces aren't ''resisting the occupiers'', they are trying to carve out a power niche (which they would have done upon any dismantling of the Saddam dictatorship, unless another dictatorship had been immediately installed).

Quote:

---

Much of thier justification and recruitment comes directly from the occupiers, the fact they guys on top are in it for themselves is not the point, the reason they are able to carve out thier own niche is because they are resisting the occupiers, even if its only for thier own interests.

---

Fighting against fellow Iraqis and ethnic cleansing is a funny way of fighting the occupiers.

Quote:

---

If we had not intervened the Dictatorship would have continued, not that this a good thing but we had no good reason to go there and a few good reasons not to.

---

I think toppling Saddam was a good enough reason. In the long run we may have even saved bloodshed. How? We take him out now, there's a war, he's dead, we have troops to help reduce the violence, and eventually it goes away (or at least reverts to normal for the region). Or we let him stay, kill more people, and wait for him to die or be thrown out so we could have the same mess then instead (only without the men in desert camouflage trying to keep some semblance of order).

Quote:

---

Of course we could have also intervened but had an actual plan for running the country and adequate troops to do the job, if we had been prepared from the start we may have avoided a whole lot of casulties...

---

No dispute there.

Quote:

---

You can blame the 'security' when they are the whole reason that the person is a criminal, no 'security' no criminal, thus the security is directly to blame for the criminal.

---

They aren't though. This mess would have happened anyway, sooner or later, and as said, it's being used to settle old scores rather than to necessarily throw off the occupier.