Are Iraqi insurgents justified in firing on coalition forces?

Americans, Iraqis, whoever it's just bad, expected under circumstances which are sometimes avoidable ie if you dont want guerrilas killing your troops dont invade a country.

Germany and France are smelling like roses right now.

The US was terrified of Ho Chi Minh, but he extolled nationalism, not marxism, and that was why the people of Vietnam won. The people of Iraq will 'win' too - there's no way they can't - The US/Uk will leave, and I don't think there will be a western democracy, but an Islamic government put in place.

This is hilarious.

co·a·li·tion. n.
1. An alliance, especially a temporary one, of people, factions, parties, or nations.
2. A combination into one body; a union.

I can't see how these terms apply to the current situation.

In terms of practical politics, only a minority of Iraqis have a practical reason for resistance right now, mostly Baathists. The resistors have done the collaborators a big favor by forcing the US government to announce a short timetable for handing over power to some form of Iraqi government. When it has been proved (as it shall be next July) that the timetable was no more than a ploy and a hoax, and the US still holds effective power over the Iraqi state, then it will be time for the Shiites to make their power move, through massive public demonstrations and strikes.

you're funny too.

sorry - that's a giant non answer.

That is all. (x-post)

for me, i think, that whenever the forces of one country occupy the territory of another there is going to be bad feeling. even among those that consider the occupying force as liberators, eventually there is going to come the time of "hang on, you are still here". being ruled by another country or coalition has never gone down well, and the interim period when it is accepted is often a lot shorter than people imagine (and probably shorter than what is required)

whether it is justified is a difficult question to answer, (and i think a way round this problem has been to couch the 'native insurgents' also as foreign agitators, which may well be very true).

its a lot more palatable to imagine unrest as being perpetrated by foreign structures than it is to think of them as locals (whatever the situation). because if it is the latter, you are left in an uncomfortable predicament, namely that these insurgents must be defeated (because you are then left with going after the very people you are supposed to be protecting/liberating)

this, of course, is a very modern predicament, because i think the idea of war as a moral endeavour is still quite new (at least war as a non-religious moral endeavour).

2. considering its foreign policy, i dont think france is any position to consider itself smelling of roses.