[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Germans used combined arms doctrine in WW2. Germans were nazis in WW2. Israelis use combined arms doctrine. Ergo Israelis are Nazis.

Just because you copy somebody's MO it doesn't mean you copy everything they do.

As for freedom fighters. I don't like to use that term because it's subjective. I prefer term insurgents. Insurgents are peopel who target occupation troops, representatives of Iraqi regime and infrastructure (which are legitimate targets in war). Those who target civilians are terrorists.

You said it very well.

Doy ou even watch the news? Sunnis are main force in insurgency. Until recently it was onyl sunnis that fought US. Now shi'ias are joining as well, but it's still mostly sunnis.

My bad. That doesn't change the fact that US forces will prevail in Iraq, and democracy will be installed. I know it, and you know it. You may prefer anarchy, or the law "you use hand to steal, I cut hand" but unfortunately that won't happen.

even f they will be held only in parts of Iraq? Like holding US elections only in Texas and inowhere else. But hey, at least there were elections in parts of US, right?

If there's a risk that your highly-esteemed insurgents carry out blind and deadly attacks just to disrupt the elections, it's preferrable not to take place in those areas. Security comes first.

The statement that politicians lie is speculation?

No, just the fact that you take for granted that Bush is lying in that particular situation.

So country with bunker mentality, totaly isolated formt he world, possesing long range ballistic missiles and up to 10 nukes is not a threat to world peace? Well, if you say so....

Absolutely, as there are no links of North Korea with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist outfit.

No, but they fact that US didn't do anything for 4 years doesn't exactlly agree with your statement that US cares for people, does it?

Ah, so that's why they are increasing forces in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because they don't want to get involved. Thanks for clearing that one.

What did your country do about it? As thegurgi very rightly said, better do something as well rather than bitching about the US not doing enough...or not doing anything...or if they do enough it's for their own self-interest. You can't have an omelette without breaking some eggs.

As for US troops dying for Iraqis.... Us is doing a lot of killing there and a lot less dying than Iraqis.

Does this mean that if there were more American casualties than Iraqui casulaties, that would be ok, and now it's not?

How?

How...lets see how. By adopting a hard-line anti-Western, anti American stance, collaborating with terrorists, further repressing their people with the implementation of extreme islamic law, killing and torturing, pretty much what Saddam was doing.

To a degree. When Iraqis began using gas on Iranians (peopel who were defending their country from Iraqi invasion) US president sent envoy to meet with Saddam and assured him of US support. that envoy was Donald rumsfeld.

In 1988 when Iraqis gassed Kurdish town of Halabya US increased agricultural aide to Iraq by 100%. In previous years Iraq purchased crop spraying planes with this aid. When those planes arrived in Iraq they were given to military which used them to spray CW, with full US knowledge.

There have been many errors in terms of American foreign policy in the past. Does this mean we are to accuse Rumsfeld for carrying out these attacks personally? And what did the rest of the world do about it...and finally...do you expect the US intelligence to have knowledge of everything that Saddam Hussein was doing? If you accuse them of incompetence or wrong decisions, that's another matter.

No. But that doesn't mean they are thrileld with US being there.

I don't blame them.

[/quote]