It is so much more complicated than that! When teh Germans first entered the USSR and some parts of France, they were greeted pretty warmly. Vichy France was a German stooge state in which citizens openly collaborated with Germans to rid their villages of those pesky dang Jews. They usually reported downed allied flyers and OSS operatives. They even ratted-out their own French Resistence. The same thing happened on the eastern front for a while. But the Nazis were too foolish to see it and instead, brutalized the liberated people. When Stalin regained control, he finished-off much of the remainder.

The point he made was that people can forgive the destruction of life if they believe it is for a greater cause. If the coalition are able to convince the Iraqis that the coalition is not colonizing the State, then they may get the good will and forgiveness.

At this early juncture, nothing is certain except that more coalition soldiers and more innocent civilians will die. The goal is to concince Iraq that it was done in the name of justice.

You guys seem to need a lot of complicated explanations. Here's a simple one - you invade someone else's country, you get a partisan resistance. Your complex explanations seem to ignore the simple fact that all the Iraqi factions except 1, the Kurds, are killing our soldiers. Like the simple explanation says, you've got partisan resistance. A lot of it is provided by people whose kids or parents you have killed. If it was my counttry, I'd do the same.
There is nothing new about wars of occupation. They all turn out this way, and they are all fueled by hatred and rage towards an invader. Human nature, not complex military forces are at work here, my friend.

Krik, you're not getting the nuance, here.

When troops enter another country, an awful lot depends on what they do while there. If they depose a thug and grow freedom and democracy, they may do well: Japan, Korea. Or they may get invited to leave: Vietnam. It depends on an awful lot of factors many of which are uncontrollable and unknowable at the outset. Some are knowable but intractable and some are knowable and doable. Hm, that sounds familiar. Must be that squeeky Rmsfeld mind-control chip in my frontal lobes.

Yesss master.

What hump?

Bot

Well sir, the nuance you are neglecting is agressive invasion. "Preemption" if you will. The occupied Japanese and Germans knew their governments had engaged in very bad behavior, especially the Germans, who got to take a few sight seeing tours of the local death camps. The Japanese had been ordered by their God-emperor not to resist. Agressive war, on the other hand is an attack on a nation at peace. Name an instance where that has not resulted in a partisan movement.

Agressive invasion is an immoral act in and of itself and is considered a war crime absent justification, which so far we have none. As I stated before, "Waging Agressive War" was a crime that Nazis and Japanese hung for.

Immoral acts committed on people lead to a desire for revenge. Simple human nature. I'm an Iraqi, tending my goats. All of a sudden, my house blows up and everything that ever meant anything to me is gone. It would not have happened if you hadn't invaded my country without reason. I now hate you on a level incomprehensible to most people, and will spend my life trying to kill you. Human nature, pure and simple, and why "preemptive war" is a very, very bad idea. It creates people like this. They're planting roadside bombs as we speak.

Hah, I knew it.

__________________
72 W114/M130

RedMeat cartoon

I was talking about Iraq.

Is it immoral, in and of itself? You mean regardless of circimstance or context, it is wrong. I find it hard to believe that you believe that. Could you explain it a bit?

B