Obviously, because everyone, including non-ba'athists, loved Saddam. Screw freedom afterall, we want to be murdered!

Most of these guys are foriegn muslim radicals, al-qaida insurgents or disgruntled ba'ath party members. But anyways, if they are Iraqi citizens angry with the evil Americans who had the audacity to ensure their family members won't be raped, then that still doesn't matter. They're using bombs and guerilla tactics to attempt to make the U.S. politcally and militarily give up on Iraq. Terrorists.

Correct me if I am wrong as I have no military training, but during basic training, aren't most of these young men trained to dehumanize their opponent---to basically think of one thing, target acquistion and termination? Seems to me that this heavily edited tape and the link to the transcript that someone provided bears this out. Should any of you have the time or inclination, read about the "Rape of Nanking." Very sobering realizations. Personally, I couldn't finish the book.

As an Arab who's actually spent time in the Middle East, I can tell you you have no clue what the people of Iraq truly think.


SLM3

Good for you.

Lets put Saddam back in power then, how do you like those apples? (you don't.)

Again, telling me what I think.

I see you're a fan of the Bush black and white, with us or against us mentality. Either we take Saddam out this way, or he stays and continues exactly as things have been going.

Did it cross your mind at all that there were perhaps other ways of realizing the desired result? And when I say desired, I'm talking about the Iraqi people, not you.

The people who are angry do not miss Sadaam, but they do not welcome another occupation in his place, especially if it is selfish and hypocritical. Is that so hard to understand?

SLM3

Like what? Continuing to be a bunch of pussies by letting him walk all over us while we pump out another 20 or so resolutions? You had your way for 12 years buddy, it failed, miserably. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died while we were bitching to the U.N., sending in more inspectors and other general bullshit.

You think they prefer Saddam's regime over the Iraqi council backed by the U.S. military? Hell no, just because you're an arab and you've been to the middle east doesn't mean shit.

This is common sense, you're saying they enjoy being raped and murdered. But I'll tell you for a fact that they don't.

The only legitimate overthrow of a government occurs from within, by the people. Outside assistance is warranted as long as it isn't hypocritical and selfish. This could have been done after the first Gulf War. It wasn't, why? Because a bottom-up reformation cannot be controlled. However, a top-down change can indeed be controlled and that is what has happened.

I'm not defending Sadaam; get that out of your head. I'm arguing against the way his removal was done. It's not legitimate and it doesn't reflect the needs and wants of the people.


SLM3

Bullshit.

I know you've both got your blood up, but come on, guys, let's have a debate here, not a slagging match.

You argue agains a well organised attack that killed less than 5000 people ? Your revolution from within would have killed a hundred times that amount. You "empathetic" lefies always seem to offer solutions that leave a deeper trail of blood than what was actually done. And you pretend to care?

Less than 5,000? Where do you get your figures?

You question my compassion because you're too blind to see where I'm coming from. All you're doing is thinking short term. Saddam is gone, yes, but what is left for the people? Is it enough simply that he's gone? NO. He's been replaced by occupation. An occupation that is hypocritical and selfish and really has nothing to do with the actual people of the country.

A truly legitimate revolution would occur from within, as was attempted after the first Gulf War.

The path of least resistance isn't always the best way to go. Would this resentment of the US exist if they had helped the Iraqi people do the job themselves?

Two different paths and results so how can you compare likely casualties?

Remember, the struggle has just taken a different form now.

SLM3

Ok, the bombing of the UN HQ was a terrorist attack but an invading army can't verry well cry about being attacked.

What are we supposed to do. Give him medical attention and put a gun back in his hand? I think not. If the shoes were reversed they would be doing the same to our troops. It's war. People die. I'd much rather see their men die than ours.

A quick note to everyone.
Keep it civil for christ's sake!
It's fine to disagree, but keep it above the level of a four year old.
I didn't post in politics for a long time, and I now regret getting involded in these pissing matches again.

How do we know he wasnt crawling towards his weapon? We dont, do you know why? Because of a fine piece of editing.

How do we know the Marine was talking about that killing?
We dont.
Know why? Again because of a fine piece of editing.

What the hell do any of you detractors know what was going through these kids minds at that moment?

Quite possibly they just finished a fire fight and this Iraqi had killed one of their own.

To quote Jack Nicholson you people have some nerve to sleep under the blanket of freedom these people provide and then question the very way they provide it.

I bet alot of you play war games on ps2/pc pretending you are big bad combat Marines.

It is alittle different when your life is REALLY on the line.

And you do? Arabs might have a huge inferiority complex in the mideast that made them hope Saddam would put up a real fight, but I rather doubt you spent any time in Iraq or anywhere near someone who had his family killed, or daughter raped by the Bathists. Nice try on the race card though.

We didn't cry about it, we kicked some more ass. But that's not the point, the point is they're terrorists.

Anyone else find that a bit contradictory? :rolleyes:

Did you know then, that Hussain's uncle, the family member he was closest to as a child, was a Nazi and spent five years in prison for his part in a plot to install a pro Hitler leader in Iraq during WWII?

Saddam grew up admiring the Nazi's and Hitler.

This is almost Orwellian 1984 logic. The Iraqi people are terrorists because they try to defend themselves against an invading army?

Where the American colonialists who though the British army terrorists, during the War of American Independance?

I've spent a lot of time with people in the Middle East who've been injured or lost family and friends to US aggression or aggression fully supported and funded by the US. Again the standard argument I'm getting is that the US alternative to Saddam was the only choice in the world.

The problem is no one even thought to play the race card. No one thought to ask the IRAQIS what they might like to see as an end to Hussein's rule. Perhaps that's not the best way to look at it though. No one in the US cared enough to even think to ask them or consider the results for them of this war. Remember, the lead up to this war was all about you, not the Iraqis. Don't tell me you suddenly care now about daughters being raped and families being murdered.

It's a lot easier to live in a bubble in the US and dictate policy for a nation you have no clue about. You refuse to understand the mentality of a people currently under occupation, regardless of what they had before. You must be very comfortable.


SLM3

I won't get to deep into your post because personally I don't think there is any point.

I can't say we asked to many Iraqi's in Iraq in large numbers, it wouldn't have been allowed, but one thing we do have in the US is a lot of Iraqi citizens who fled from Saddam when they could. They have been VERY vocal in support of the war, and it was always amusing when some Iraq refugee and some protestor got into a debate on the war. I'm sure they don't matter to you.

Non sequitur, infuriating, and a few other things.

Just like you would be a terrorist if you took up weapons against anybody who invaded the US. Or does it only work one way? :rolleyes:

We offer them no reason to defend themselves, the average Iraqi citizen is not being attacked. The ones that are attacking us are terrorists because of their tactics; Driving buses into the UN headquarters, roadside bombs, ambushes with small arms, these are common tactics used by terrorists.

Furthermore, their objectives make them terrorists as well. They are first and foremost out to kill westerners, convert them to Islam, and throw them out of the middle-east. They have a political objective which they push with tactics that insight terror. Terrorists.

You could possibly define the colonialists as terrorists, but don't do it in the U.S. someone's likely to pop you one. They did indeed have political goals, but they used more traditional ways to push them forward. Like engaging in battles, instead of using bombs and hit and run tactics, we got the French to help us out and even did the Naval fighting deal for a while I believe. So while we were an army of people with a political goal, we did not use tactics commonly attributed to terrorists.

Like I said above, a terrorist is defined by 2 things, tactics and objectives (this is according to the dictionary by the way, so if you disagree, call websters).

I assume if someone actually succeeded in invading the U.S. that I would most likely end up joining a militia of some sort (if the military was gone), and beat the hell out of them. Are you assuming I disagree with their tactics Nad Adam? That's not why I dislike terrorists, I dislike them because they're attacking our troops.

The use of ambushes is not consistant with terrorist activity at all. I think you need to discriminate between legitimate resistance and terrorist acts.
Again, only certain groups. Others are just pissed that an invading army is on their soil. If the roles were reversed, I know I would be, regardless of the good that came of it...

Any use or threat of force aimed at intimidating a government or society is terrorism. Ambushes are clearly a use of force, but it's certainly not restricted to terrorists. I don't believe these people believe they can defeat our army in this fashion, so logically their aim must be to intimidate us until we leave.

I think that would depend on the circumstances. If a President is in power that changes the American way of life, takes away all of our rights, puts hundreds of thousands to death, takes all of our money, and bullies us, then I would have been pissed a long time ago, and would welcome foreign troops to help us out.

No, they feel that by killing our troops they can make us withdraw. It is not intimidation or terror. By that standard any armed resistance by a significantly weaker force could be called terrorism.

That's the dictionaries standard.

What a load. In that case there is no denying that the revolutionaries of 1776 were terrorists. Of course they are in good company with the Vietcong, Argentina, Britain (remember those terrorists who fought under Wellington and Nelson), the Native American tribes, and everyone else who has every been an underdog in a conflict.

Look mate, there are terrorists in Iraq. There are also insurgents. I have been shot at by them. Why is that so hard to understand?

I know that, but if people are going to be giving me shit over my choice of words then they'd better know what the word means.

Because you are trying to widen the use of the word. If you succed then the meaning of it will be lost and you will have to come up with a new one to distinguish what used to be a terrorist from someone that forcefully opposes the US-invasion.

The word you guys have been looking for the last 20 or so posts is Guerrilla. As in Guerrilla Insurgency.

Air Force Doctorine.

WAR "an act of force to compel an enemy to do our will."

Link to entire (very lengthy) arcticle.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a.../fabyanic.html

This is what was taught in the AF. I think it fits.

I don't like the tape as viewed. However, I was not there and second guessing a wartime situation can lead to mistakes.

You DO know that Britain invaded Iraq during the Second World War to secure an oil supply, right? Siding with your invader's enemy doesn't necessarily make you a sick freak.

Allow me to pre-emptively mention that I despise Nazism. I just want to fill out Strange Famous' odd comment.

Good thing for jessica lynch that the "terrorists" who took her captive were feeling more merciful than the chaps on that video. Not that any of you would take any prisoners if the us was being invaded. You'd be too busy devising your "terrorist'" plans to defend your homeland.