Seemed to me that the Bush sackrider's only point was "do what you're told to do, feel what you're told to feel, question nothing, or else leave the country". Anyone who disagrees with them is a leftist hippie. It couldn't possibly be that some of us have read a history book or two and know that guerilla warfare win 9 times out of 10. Look at the Viet-Cong, look at the IRA of the early 20s, look at Che Guevarra. Your "administration" is getting people killed without making any progress towards a resolution, but Bush is too stubborn and proud to scale it back at all because that could be interpreted as an admission of bad judgement from the start. The only way to finish this is to take away the insurgent's reason for doing what they do, but all we're doing is reinforcing their beliefs.

And you can call me a leftist hippie all you want, I work for the government everyday, I carry everyday, I have shot and killed in the line of duty, I have guns in my house that some of you probably haven't even heard of, hell I have a Sako TRG-42 four feet away from me right now and an original genuine Dragunov SVD in lock-up at the bank. I'm all for military action and busting up a place when it works. This Iraq war is not working. It's wasting lives, wasting money, and wasting what little credibility we have left with much of the world. I work for the Feebs because I care about this country, and I hate seeing it be abused for some very little man's power trip.

Allow me to analogize again. The US is like my mother. I love her and I'll defend her no matter what, but I'll still tell her when she's being stupid.


*spelling*

 

This country is based on intelligent criticism of authority. Blindly defending the United States in everything it does is the most damaging thing a citizen can do.

Nice analogy. That's sig material.

Allow me to add Mao Tse-Tung's CCP to the list. I know there are more, I just can't think of a good one.

 

I agree, but sadly in my case, I actually had to "Do what I was told, feel what I was told to feel, and question nothing". [:@] Kind of a job requirement.

 

I don't like talking over these things but//// saddam had to be removed because of his "idle dangerous threats" and mass murders of innocent people, at the time saddam use biological weapons on his people that's a fact and in my view it was only a matter of time before he developed them further "and he would have used them make no mistake about that" as for WMDs we all know Syria has them hidden, I personally don't believe in surgical warfare because it causes a policing problem and the problems that are evident in that country they should do it the proper way " flatten them then plant the flag" I know its the way of the empire but its always worked

 

I that what we know? The only thing we know is that we don't know where they are. That could mean they don't exist, it could mean that they're just very well hidden, but it doesn't provide a definitive answer for anything. My personal opinion, based on experience with the US Intelligence services is that Saddam couldn't have moved a bucket of Truffles into Syria without us knowing, much less tons of delivery devices. I know Saddam was a threat. I don't think anyone, even the most lefty nutters you can think of will deny that, and it's good that he's gone. But right now the only thing that matters is making a change that will start to find a resolution, because is it sits, there is no end in sight. They'll keep coming out of the woodwork, and we'll keep sending young and old over there, some of whom won't be coming back.

That was mostly my point. It doesn't always work, especially when you're fighting people who can come out of a crowd of people, strike, then blend back in, or more potent in this case, people who not only aren't afraid to die, but actually welcome it.

Just to counterpoint you there, look at the IRA right before the assmbly of the Irish Free State in the 20s. Michael Collins had at best a few hundred loyal members, likely under 50 actual active ones at his side, yet through using guerilla tactics (which many say Collins was the father of) they were able to force the entire British empire to it's knees, and they got their freedom after a few short years of using that method. This was a fight that had been going on for 800 years, and by using tactics not too unlike the insurgents of which we speak, they were able to bring the issue to the front and gain what they wanted in relatively no time at all.

Full scale military action can do wonders when everyone on the opposing force wears the same color dress, goes where you expect them to go and stands around waiting to kill or be killed. This is different. In this case, anyone can start taking pot shots surrounded my a crowd of civvies, and the second a US troop shoots back anywhere near that same crowd, it's going to be on the news for weeks, even if he had no other option but to be killed. Then misrepresentation of that same event will draw in even more Iraqi loyalists who would then probably feel justified that they're just protecting their country and it's citizens.

So yeah, bust it up when doing so will work, bu tI don't think it will work in the case, no matter how long we stay there.

 

oh yes there is an end even the infidels of the middle east wont except it ( pull all the real people out and let them kill each other )[:@]

 

Thats exactly my sentiments Silver. mind you, it never bothered anyone when Saddam was gassing, and killing people back in the 80's when weapons were sold to him. In fact a certain Donald Rumsfeld shook saddams hand. IF saddam had WMD';s do you not think he would have used them in his desperate plight? How times have changed. The IRA is an excellent example of one mans freedom fighter, being another mans terrorist. Remember that a lot of IRA funding was from the US as well, so maybe the US should be a little less self righteous when invading others. Silver is right about one thing, Saddam was a *****, but the whole Iraqi fiasco is one we would have been best avoiding. We will be there for the foreseeable future, there were no WMD's, there was no link to terrorism, especially Al Quaeda. We have no exit stratagy, and although some of you may say I am lefty, or Bush/Bliar-hater, I have been saying this since before the invasion. The hardest thing to do is fight someone who has no public face. we have no headquarters to attack, and no borders to base our attacks.

 

when didn't we shake hands with the devil with good intentions WHO IS THE DEVIL, in my country I look at the northerner/southerner but I confine my thoughts to my country and not interested in taking over the world with my faith, to each their own I say but the middle east want to force there religion on others and that will fail ( this is Hitlers ideology) and will be crushed by the west

 

we are now fighting for something and that's oil/money because that's all that's left "the people are worthless" because they change like the wind they back the winners which is the west, vee havv vvays ovv making you do it lol

 

Who is trying to force their opinions on whom? Do you have any idea what the Middle east conflicts, and strife has been all about? The Middloe east is certainly not trying to force their religion on the West. I think the West is trying to influence too many things in the Middle east, namely the Israeli/Palastinian crisis. That is the reason that much of the aniti-west feeling has arisen from. Mr Bin Liner got his knickers in a twist becasue the Saudi royal family allowed the US/UK/Allied troops into the Holy land of saudi, instead of his Afghan foces, (whom he wanted to go and expel iraq from kuwait with). So, the real issue is not religion, or forcing ideal on anyone else, but keeping the Western influence from the Middle east.
You are right about one thing, however, I prsonally believe that we went in for the oil. There are already thousands of western companies sweeping up in Iraq, making million, and the 'securing' of future oil supplies is the main aim of the Allies. It has little to do with a tyrrany, or possible WMD's. If we were that bothered the Rwanda, Cono, and Zimbabwe would all be occupied by UN/Allied forces. They are not, and the reason is that there is no money to be made. Things are rarely done to this degree if there is to be no benefit to the occupiers.