You didn't read the problem did you? Its being signed by the democratically elected government. One of the Shia opposing this has enough seats to make it fail. The threats of resorting to violence should be condemened.
As they either aren't needed, or its a minority trying to use force to get its views accross, would you stand for that here?
If one of our political parties said "you will accept our view on this matter or we will send fighters into the streets to shoot and bomb people" would say thats a good thing?
Without the support of the people this agreement won't pass, if it has the agreement of the people, then who are these thugs to use force against the peoples wishes?
Their situation is a tad more different from our everyday situations in our country. They have been invaded, they are occupied by another forign nation with their own forign interests. They as a collective population and whatever backgrounds or beliefs they may personally hold, all have lost trust in just about everything and everyone around them. They've all been (For the most part) trying to work with the US-backed government so that the US would leave their land sooner, rather then later..... having a concept in front of them that perhaps the US could stay even longer then originally expected.... well it doesn't take a rocket sicentist to figure out plenty on all sides of Iraq are going to be a tad pissed off one way or another if this happens.
Al-Sadr is a part of the government and was given that position in order to tame him down a bit and to give him an inside view to see how the government works.... they do indeed need his support in order to keep things going, as he represents a good chunk of the population.
But based on their situation of being citizens of their own nation, being occupied by another nation and decisions being influenced by that forign occupying nation..... the situation and tactics change from what we think is the norm in our everyday lives.
When you never liked an occupying force in your lands, and you never fully trusted the government they setup, and you feel that the government that was setup is having more favor for the occupying country over your own people and lands, then defending by military action is one of the last few things one can resort to..... so yes, I do think it's a good idea.
Nations around the world use military force to do what they feel is justified, whether or not everybody agrees with them...... and for far less reasons of justification. I would think defending one's own nation, one's own people, neighbors, friends, family and overall way of life would be one of the few justified reasons for military action. If Canada was invaded by some other country, you bet your sweet ass I'd be up in the hills with a sniper rifle or taking up arms in some other fashion.
Borders exist for a reason and if some other country sends their troops accross those borders, to me, I don't care if they were former allies or life long enemies with our nation, their rights to live have expired and I hold no sympathy for those who die.
With that said, based on the fact that they are still occupied by a nation through lies and false assumptions and have shown very little in overall progress in bringing back their nation to something functioning and secure...... many there feel that if the US doesn't leave by 2011, they never will without force being used on them..... I feel this is true. If the US hasn't fixed their mistakes there by 2011, they never will.
If you want a nation to heal and grow again, you can't stich it back up until you pull the blade out first..... and the US hasn't removed itself out of there yet for any healing to begin..... all that is being done right now is dabbing iodine around the bigger problem and saying it's slowly healing.
Iraq will never heal and move on until the US leaves their land, plain and simple..... and that's their point.... and if the US won't leave on their own, then apparently many in Iraq will help them along their way by force.
And what was said above:
"If they do stay, I urge the honourable resistance fighters … to direct their weapons exclusively against the occupier."
^ To me, that's a hell of a lot more direct then much of what I have read or heard/seen in the past.... If they do focus their attacks exclusively on the US and their allies, rather then using random car bombs, etc. (That also kill many civilians as well) then the entire tied of the war we all know could easily shift into a totally different direction.
And considering the fact that the US is now planning on pulling some troops out of Iraq to be plopped into Afghanistan, if and when this situation becomes reality, the US troops still in Iraq are certainly going to be short on help.... and eventually if it continues, the US will either
A) Pull out of Iraq or
B) Transfer troops from Afghanistan back into Iraq
There are a few other options I can think of, but their outcomes wouldn't be wise for anybody to take.
You asked a question along the lines of using violent force to get what you want done and if I supported that kind of mentality.... my answer, when it comes to a forign force who created the situation in the first place with violent force, yes I do.
The US has a very big hand involved in all of the crap happening in Iraq today, as they did when they first invaded. For a powerful nation with technology and manpower far greater then Iraq's to come into their nation, using violent force to blow the living hell out of everything and everyone, hunt down their former leader, execute him, put in their own government (one that caters to the occupier more then their own people) plants weapons and tools on innocent they have shot and/or killed to cover their tracks..... among many other situations that would take too long to list...... you want to play the evil card on those who want their lands back into their own hands and to have forign non-believers leave their country, who are willing to fight for their own nation to call home?
You think they should approach this in a diplomatic manner? They should talk this all out? Frig we all know how stone-headed the US can be when it comes to doing things for others that doesn't benifit them in some way, even when the situation is their own fault...... you seriously think that would work?
Do you think simple talking and negotiating alone would have made the English Empire say to the US
"Gee, that's a good idea, rather then continuing to control you guys, we'll let you have your own nation and no fighting has to occur?"
No, because the occupying nation is occupying for their own agendas and personal wants..... so trying to cut any reasonable deals in this position is next to impossible.... which is why the US had their Revolution and war against England in the first place. They took up arms, they fought....... Now Iraqis are doing the same (Or about to do so in a big way) and you and the US think it's wrong for them to do this?
Why? Because now they have a democratic government? Democratic Governments are like any other government.... they all have a good chance of being influenced and corrupted by outside sources.... and with a brand new democratic government in of all the places, in the middle of the Middle-East.... they need support, funding and backing up by some other force in order to survive, which automatically increases their chances of being corrupt to the core in any given time.
And when you feel your own government that was force on you is corrupt, untrustworthy, and doesn't have your people in their best interests..... then what else is there left to do?
Plead with the UN? Last I heard they only deal with the actual representational government of a nation, not the people they represent.... but then if their government is corrupt and not properly representing you, what then?
Revolution.
It was ok for others in the past and there's always a long list of justifications for those points in history..... why not now and why not with them?
Oh yeah, that's right.... we're the good guys.
