SJS111567

Those "necessities" are a new found luxury for many Iraqi citizens. Many areas now have safe to drink tap water, electricity, telephones, satelite tv and internet service for the first time ever. Money earned from the sale of oil under U.N. sanctions was supposed to be used for purchasing food and medical supplies. It wasn't. It was used to fund the construction of more palaces, and for the purchase of gold plated submachine guns.

Iraqi hospitals have more and better equipment and supplies now than ever before. Many were depleted from the Iran Iraq war, and are only now equipped to handle things most take for granted, such as vaccinations and pediatric care. Iraq decayed into something less than a third world country under Saddam's rule. I'm seeing it with my own eyes everyday.

Have you looked at the crime statistics of other countries? Violence happens because of human nature. Violence happens because of accidents. Find the true root of violence, and you may find a way to end it worldwide. I'm sure everyone in France knew someone killed in WWI and again in WWII. I'm sure everyone in Israel knows someone who has been killed by a terrorist bombing. War is hell. War take a heavy toll. Please, be my guest, find a way to eliminate the part of human nature that leads us to make war amongst ourselves. I would be happy to be unemployed due to a lack of necessity.

The coalition forces in Iraq are not fighting terrorists. We never were. We've never pretended to be either. Initially, we fought against the standing military of the Saddam regime. After conquering the Iraqi military, we set about the process of rebuilding it, equipping it, and training the volunteer soldiers. Volunteers? Yes, Iraqi men are no longer forced into the military under threat of "be a soldier or we kill you and your family." It is by choice now, one of the many new found freedoms that the citizens of Iraq now have.

Who are we fighting now? Not terrorists. We are now fighting insurgents. Many may call them terrorists, and I suppose it may be a matter of perspective. If a militia formed in the United States or Great Britian, or any other country, and began targeting government officials for execution, blowing up police stations, and setting off car bombs in crowded market places, would we call them terrorists? Probably. The same people we look at as insurgents, may truthfully be labeled as terrorists by the Iraqi government. Most of the insurgents are Iraqi citizens. Some are not. Some are truly terrorists, who have traveled to Iraq for the sole pleasure of being able to set off huge bombs to kill innocent people, and to try to make sure that the U.S. fails in it's attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.

I don't believe the term had been invented at that time, but if it had been, I think it would be safe to say that Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington et all would definitely have been branded as terrorists.
As I said before, it's a matter of perspective. The Boston Tea Party would more than likely qualify as a terrorist attack on the British economy.

Not necessarily. Not when that animal happens to be a human being. Why were the victims of the Nazi concentration camps complacent? Why didn't they rise up and attack en masse, 1000 inmates per guard, and liberate themselves from the camps and systematic extermination? Why did the Iraqi people allow a small handful of brutal tyrants make life hell for them, and cripple the country to the point that it did? Why do so many people from Iraq and other countries try to immigrate, legally or otherwise, to other countries for more freedom and opportunity, instead of staying home and trying to make their own country a better place?

__________________
Gun Control - The difference between Lexington Green and Tianemen Square.