> CB: An obvious difference is that Japan attacked the U.S. , and Iraq did
> not attack the U.S.
>
> The U.S. war and occupation on Iraq are criminal under international law.
> It
> is legal ( there is a right) to resist an illegal invasion and occupation.
>
> What law are you relying on to define rights ?
-------------------------------------
Charles is right: the US was clearly the aggressor in Iraq, but I reject
justifying the right of resistance to foreign occupation on this basis
alone, or even primarily. Defining the "aggressor", an abstract principle in
international law, is the perogative of the victor. If the Japanese had won
the Pacific war, for example, they they could have argued with some
convinction that under international law their pre-emptive strike on Pearl
Harbour was a legitimate act of self-defence against the US oil embargo
earlier that year which threatened it with economic strangulation.
Accepting, though, that Japan was indeed the aggressor, I would still answer Luke's question as follows: if there were a popular uprising, especially one led by the underground Japanese left, aimed at ending the US occupation and replacing the government which MacArthur installed, I would have supported it without reservation - Pearl Harbour notwithstanding. Why should the Japanese or any people suffer occupation against their will for the transgressions committed by their former government, especially when the government has fallen into disfavour, as it had in Japan?
There is actually a concrete instance in that period to draw on. The Italian partisans, citizens of an "aggressor" nation, opposed the the imposition of the Badoglio government by the allies, and were prepared to confront the occupying powers arms in hand over this issue. Did they not have the moral and legal right to do so, even though, like the Japanese, they belonged to a defeated Axis power?
I can't think of any cases offhand where armed resistance to foreign occupation has been condemned by the international community. It would help clarify the discussion if Luke or someone else could cite any.
MG