These types of things??
>"Walking in the shoes of someone who puts a bullet through the head of a CARE worker? Who puts bombs in ambulances and the corpses of infants? Who kills ellow Iraqis indiscriminately, and bomb churches and religious gatherings? "
None of these things were happening BEFORE we went into Iraq.
There was no "resistance".
There were no "insurgents".
It is an illegal war that was started by a hot headed Texan, motivated by commercial interests and contracts, and has been promoted by nationalistic sloganeering.
It has been against international law and was sold as a bill of goods through LIES (WMD, and then "regime change").
Iraq formerly had a dictator we did business with, but we changed our minds. Iraq had commerce, culture and a functioning society. We have invaded, took over their banks and oil wells, and decided to divide the country into "you're either with us or against us".
When we are seen as occupiers, Iraqi individuals who resist the occupation take up arms against us. It is these very individuals that we are going about slaughtering, and anyone else who gets in our way. We are blowing up their cities and their infrastructures, and the violence is stepping up and out of control a year and a half later. We say we help with the "reconstruction" of Iraq, but guess who's going to pay for it. YOU. And your kids. It's going to be a VERY expensive excursion.
Oh, it's a lot easier saying "well, which side do you want to win?"
We shouldn't be there in the first place.
We have no exit strategy and there is no going back.
The only thing left is massive force with a complete annihilation of the Iraqi infra-structure.
Who exactly are the "terrorists" here?
I do not condone the killing, and think this war will haunt us for decades to come. GW Bush not only made a huge mistake, he will drag the world kicking and screaming into his blunders. Have you heard China plans to support Iran's nuclear program?
Flame » in reply to My definition is a bit simpler.
Opposed to.............?
The whole thread (92 posts)
- A question for Mark Eby: What is your definition of 'terrorist'?
- Someone who DELIBERTATELY targets non-combatants.
- That's George Bush. Read it again. (n/t)
- Your Definition Is Pretty Good
- Swinging intellectually (and wildly)
- Uh, lemme try: someone with a rag on their head? (n/t)
- My definition is a bit simpler.
- Opposed to.............?
- re: My definition is a bit simpler.
- Differences
- re: Differences
- A seven year old responds
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- Old Trick
- Another Old Trick
- Same Old Anti-war Rubbish
- re: Another Old Trick
- Maybe the point is...
- Same Old Dem Lies And Stupid Posturing
- And what would the same war have cost ten years from now?
- I didn't say there was a better way.
- Maybe the point is...
- Another Old Trick
- re: You're right, as far as it goes. (n/t)
- good bump (n/t)
- Old Trick
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- A seven year old responds
- re: Differences