>Why not resist the occupation forces by non-cooperation? There seems to be
>quite a bit of that going on as it is, but if, say 90%, of Iraqis just
>stopped cooperating with the "coalition authority," how long could the
>latter stay? They would either have to leave or destroy the whole country
>(which it seems they are bent on doing as it is).
Caught a bit of a talking heads show this afternoon, can't remember if it was CBC, CPAC, or a local channel; there was one guy, a professor who'd lived in Iraq about 20-some odd years ago and returned recently there for a month. He said that a big complaint with the people there was jobs going to foreign workers and not Iraqis (don't know about the veracity of that one). What with the unemployment rate there now (definately high, but I couldn't find any reliable figures quickly) and mundane things seemingly "getting done" well enough to satisfy the occupiers (if not the occupied), would even a majority of non-cooperators matter enough to give BushCo and the Marines pause? A pretty open question, I think. And its not like the States doesn't have ANY support in country, what with Chalabi and his cronies.
Just a bit of a diversion, but still on topic: when Ghandi did his non-violent resistance thing, was India in such a state as we find Iraq now?
Or Palestine when Israel appeared on the scene?
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines