Children fight troops in Iraq

[Lanya]

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/breaking_news/15556867.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Young children fight troops in Iraq, the headline says.
We had a chance to win hearts and minds, and I'm so sad that we blew it. 

[R.R.]

The tactics these terrorists use to attack Americans are disgusting. They hide among civilians, and in Mosques. Now they are using some of the children of Madr army members to attack Americans, though this does not represent the majority attitude of Iraqis toward Americans. The terrorists don't give a damn about protecting innocent life. They destroy it.

[Michael Tee]

<<though this does not represent the majority attitude of Iraqis toward Americans. >>

LOL.  How would YOU know what the majority attitude of Iraqis toward Americans is?

<<They hide among civilians . . . >>

NEWS FLASH, R.R.  - - They LIVE there!!!  They're not "hiding among civilians," they're living in their own country with their own people.  Unlike some highly trained killers and torturers I could mention.

<<The terrorists don't give a damn about protecting innocent life.>>

ROTFLMFAO.  Unlike the U.S. army.  THEY give a JDAM.  But seriously, R.R., I'm very impressed that you show such concern for the protection of innocent life.  It's not every country that invades other countries so frequently and always with this great overarching concern for the protection of innocent human life.  It just shows what really good people you are.

[R.R.]

LOL. How would YOU know what the majority attitude of Iraqis toward Americans is?

The Iraqi government has not asked us to leave. They have set goals about when they think they can totally take over security. But they have not asked us to leave.

You are confusing what the terrorists who are affiliated with Iran and terrorists who are affiliated with al qaeda want. Those views do not represent the average Iraqi.

The average Iraqi is represented by the millions who marched to the polls to vote while putting their lives on the line.

NEWS FLASH, R.R. - - They LIVE there!!! They're not "hiding among civilians," they're living in their own country with their own people. Unlike some highly trained killers and torturers I could mention.

The terrorists hide among the civilians so innocent lives will be lost if we go after them. The terrorists hide behind women and children.

ROTFLMFAO. Unlike the U.S. army. THEY give a JDAM. But seriously, R.R., I'm very impressed that you show such concern for the protection of innocent life. It's not every country that invades other countries so frequently and always with this great overarching concern for the protection of innocent human life. It just shows what really good people you are.

As opposed to liberals who think that by not doing anything about the threats we face, particularly from Islamic extremists, will just make the problems go away. Saddam desired WMD. He was waiting for the sanctions to break down so he could restart his programs. The Taliban was sheltering bin Laden. Some liberals didn’t want to remove that government from power.

[Michael Tee]

<<The terrorists hide among the civilians so innocent lives will be lost if we go after them. The terrorists hide behind women and children.>>

Well, R.R., let me ask you:  if you lived in a small country the size of Iraq and foreigners invaded your homeland, occupied it and told you what kind of government you were going to have, if you decided to resist the occupation, where exactly would you live while you were doing your resistance work?  The occupiers aren't exactly out in the desert are they?  If the occupiers are in the city, you fight them in the city. 

It wasn't the resistance fighters who chose to make their city a battleground, it was the occupation forces.  The US forces are occupying Iraqi cities, the Iraqis don't occupy American cities.  THEY are the cowards, because they attack women and children in their hunt for the resistance fighters.  THEY are the cowards because they lack the balls to go after the resistance man-to-man.


<<As opposed to liberals who think that by not doing anything about the threats we face, particularly from Islamic extremists, will just make the problems go away. >>

The Islamic extremists who attacked your country did not come from Iraq.  They came from Saudi Arabia.  They trained in Afghanistan.  You are really confused.  They had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam and Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with them.

<<Saddam desired WMD. He was waiting for the sanctions to break down so he could restart his programs. >>

Saddam would never have dared to attack the US with nukes.  That's the craziest thing you could think of.  It would have meant instant anihilation.  Lots of countries desire nukes.  Lots of countries have nukes.  If desiring and/or having nukes is a deadly threat to the U.S., the whole country by now is as good as dead.  It's just not realistic  - - in fact, it's plain nuts - - to claim that because a certain dictator wants nukes, by that fact alone he is a mortal threat to the U.S.A.  The U.S. is a much stronger country than that.  They could never be threatened by Iraq.  That is absurd.  One hostile act by Iraq agaisnt the American homeland would be the total end of that country.

<<The Taliban was sheltering bin Laden. Some liberals didn’t want to remove that government from power. >>

Some did.  Lots did.  What are you talking about?  WHAT liberals did not want to remove the Taliban from power?  Are you trying to say that there were no liberals who supported the removal of the Taliban?  That's just not true.

[R.R.]

Well, R.R., let me ask you: if you lived in a small country the size of Iraq and foreigners invaded your homeland, occupied it and told you what kind of government you were going to have, if you decided to resist the occupation, where exactly would you live while you were doing your resistance work? The occupiers aren't exactly out in the desert are they? If the occupiers are in the city, you fight them in the city.

If I lived in Iraq, I would be very happy that the United States and Britain liberated my country. I would work within the system of Iraq and within its government.

Nevertheless, the terrorists still hide behind women and children in Iraq. And they use cowardly tactics like using IED’s, using children of the Iranian influenced militias to attack Americans, and hiding in mosques.

It wasn't the resistance fighters who chose to make their city a battleground, it was the occupation forces. The US forces are occupying Iraqi cities, the Iraqis don't occupy American cities. THEY are the cowards, because they attack women and children in their hunt for the resistance fighters. THEY are the cowards because they lack the balls to go after the resistance man-to-man.

The US military are not cowards, and they don’t lack balls. This is anti-American rhetoric on your part. I notice you don’t say a single harsh word about the terrorists who are beheading people or committing suicide attacks. You seem to think it’s courageous that they hide behind women and children.

The Islamic extremists who attacked your country did not come from Iraq. They came from Saudi Arabia. They trained in Afghanistan. You are really confused. They had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam and Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with them.

I never said they did. I said that Saddam was desiring WMD. He would have restarted his programs once the sanctions broke down, and they would have broken down. Liberals didn’t want to do anything about it. They didn't want to do anything about the threats we faced from Islamic extremists.

Saddam would never have dared to attack the US with nukes. That's the craziest thing you could think of. It would have meant instant anihilation.

Still, this does not mean that Saddam should have been allowed to have them. Again, my point was that liberals did not want to do anything about Saddam acquiring WMD, including nukes. And your post backs up my point. You don’t even seem to care.

Lots of countries desire nukes. Lots of countries have nukes. If desiring and/or having nukes is a deadly threat to the U.S., the whole country by now is as good as dead. It's just not realistic - - in fact, it's plain nuts - - to claim that because a certain dictator wants nukes, by that fact alone he is a mortal threat to the U.S.A. The U.S. is a much stronger country than that. They could never be threatened by Iraq. That is absurd. One hostile act by Iraq agaisnt the American homeland would be the total end of that country.

Again, this seems to be an argument to allow Saddam to acquire WMD, including nukes.

Some did. Lots did. What are you talking about? WHAT liberals did not want to remove the Taliban from power? Are you trying to say that there were no liberals who supported the removal of the Taliban? That's just not true.

I said some did not want to remove the Taliban from power. Cindy Sheehan is one. Moveon.org was against it as well.

[Lanya]

RR, do you have a source for MoveOn.org being against fighting in Afghanistan? I don't remember that to be the case.

[BT]

for lanya

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200506241146.asp

[Lanya]

BT, that's news to me. Never knew about it. 
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506280001
"According to Blumenthal, a CBS/New York Times pollPDF file conducted September 20-23, 2001, showed that 84 percent of self-identified "liberals" thought "the U.S. should take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks," and 75 percent favored going to war with a country harboring those responsible for the attacks."

[BT]

Lanya

Apparently Moveon was not in the mainstream.

[Michael Tee]

I think the debate here got needlessly sidetracked into a discussion of MoveOn.org as if it had a lock on all liberal thinking on Afghanistan.  That's bullshit.  There were plenty of liberals who backed the invasion of Afghanistan at the time.  To focus this all on MoveOn is just diversionary sleight-of-hand tactics.  The Liberal government of Canada, which is considerably to the left of most mainstream U.S. "liberals," were able to support the idea.  Why don't you just take a liberal "roll call" and see which liberals, starting with Ted Kennedy and Hilary, supported the invasion at the time and which didn't?  I don't know which liberals DIDN'T support the invasion of Afghanistan, it seems to me that that would be the easiest way of demonstrating the fallacy of the allegation.

[Michael Tee]

<<If I lived in Iraq, I would be very happy that the United States and Britain liberated my country. I would work within the system of Iraq and within its government. >>

Obviously you are afraid to answer my question, which was put in the hypothetical.  IF . . . IF you wanted (rightly or wrongly and for whatever reason) to resist the foreigners who had invaded your country, and you lived in Iraq, WHERE would you fight them?  Alone in the desert, where they aren't, or in your biggest cities, where they are?  Similarly, where would they eat and sleep?  In the desert, miles away from the fighting, or in the midst of their own enemy-occupied cities, which may be free-fire zones to the Americans, but are HOME to the Resistance fighters?

You are afraid to give a straightforward answer to the question because there is no answer that doesn't expose the total absurdity of your contention that it is the Resistance fighters who are the cowards and the U.S. troops who are the heroes in this struggle.  Funny, but you managed to get it turned around 180 degrees.

It's actually outrageous that Americans whose troops lack both the guts and the decency to fight the Resistance man-to-man and so from pure cowardice rain white phosphorous, tank fire and bombs on civilian dwellings from a safe distance away, have the god-damn fucking gall to label the Resistance fighters and not the U.S. occupation forces as the "cowards" who are responsible for the deaths of women, children and old people in "combat" conditions. 

You can fool yourselves all you like with that bullshit, but believe me, the rest of the world knows the difference.

[BT]

I think the debate here got needlessly sidetracked into a discussion of MoveOn.org as if it had a lock on all liberal thinking on Afghanistan.  That's bullshit.

Lanya asked for a source and i provided background information. No other claims to Moveon being a bonafide represenative of liberal thought were made. They also were against the death from above tactics of Clintons Kosovo
pacification campaign. They have long roots in the antiwar movement and seem to be consistent.

[Michael Tee]

Lanya asked for a source on the MoveOn.org allegations only because she found them hard to believe (as did I.)  My comments weren't directed at you personally, or anything you posted, just at the general idea from somewhere back in the thread that liberals opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.  The only examples given to date were MoveOn.org and I believe one other specific individual or institution.  The fact is that many prominent liberals were NOT opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan, as any "roll call" of liberals would probably indicate. 

[Plane]

IF you wanted (rightly or wrongly and for whatever reason) to resist the foreigners who had invaded your country, and you lived in Iraq, WHERE would you fight them?  Alone in the desert, where they aren't, or in your biggest cities, where they are?  Similarly, where would they eat and sleep?  In the desert, miles away from the fighting, or in the midst of their own enemy-occupied cities, which may be free-fire zones to the Americans, but are HOME to the Resistance fighters?

 

    Hmmmmm.....

        Would I fight my invader by blowing up my neighbors?
        Would I fight my invader by blowing up my rival crosstown church?
         Would I fight my invader by shooting an ethnic that I saw as co-operative with the invader?

         These are tecniques of resistance tipical of the KKK , and are a big part of the KKK's decline in popularity.

          If you were a Southerner sore at the treatment of the South by the federal Government would you blow up a church full of black worshipers as a symbolic experssion of your displeasure?
           If you were a Sunni would blowing up a Mosque full of Shiites serve to harm the invadeing Americans well enough for you to do it?