Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
The reality is that a majority of the Iraiqi's do not like the American presence in Iraq...
You are ignorant if you think Iraq is wholely "insurgent". It is not, I am not arguing that the vast MINORITY of the population is unheard of, that merely it is not the majority.
People here really need to get past the cut your nose to spite your face phase. Just because some asshole drives a car packed with explosives killing several people, doesn't mean the country is sprialing(sp) downwards. There are many historical and real world facts that point clearly to the opposite, such as the fact that the majority of the violent opposition compromises a vast minority of the population, it only holds a few fingers of the 18 Iraqi provinces such as Al Anbar (Fallujah/Ramadi sharing a border with Syria/Jordan).
Then you go talk about the word insurgent. The reality is that SC precedent has dated back 60 years with the legality of combatants, or the lack of legitimacy thereof. You just can't expect Rummy to bow down to some narrow definition, even you (non-mojos) know this.
We are fighting three factions of the population. The American presence there is fighting a small fraction of insurgents, a small fraction of foreign terrorists, and a small fraction of local terrorists. The uprising within Iraq does not compromise a majority, and against many of your secret hopes it never will. Please don't skew the facts to say so.
|
Who here is "skewing facts?" To me this thread is about the orwellian use of language in the DoD's continual attempts "market" this war to the U.S. populace. It turns out "insurgent" is a completely correct way to refer to the people making attacks in Iraq.