Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by paragon

Did you not read my entire post or something?
The answer to your question is right there.

"in Iraq both the insurgent groups that use terrorist tactics and those that do not are unacceptable because they are fighting against the popularly elected Iraqi government."

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by colourislast

I maintain there is no way to distinguish between Iraqi resistance fighters and terrorists. We just call any that resist us terrorists.

That was not the question. Do you consider those people killed by our military fighting against us (call them insurgents, resistance fighters or terrorists) civilians?

Yes, many of them and neighbors that came to their assistance.

Like wise if the U.S. friendly government we helped set up had the support of the people, there would be no need for our continued military presence in Iraq.

Which is exactly why we will be leaving in less than 2 years. Thanks for pointing out how our presence in Iraq is different than the insurgents’ and terrorists‘.

I don't understand what you are trying to say above.

So your defense is that we kill more citizens accidentally then terrorists do on purpose????


I said “may have.” As Bill likes to say, “It depends on what your definition of ’civilian’ is.” Of course hiding all your weapons, equipment and “freedom fighters” in the basement of apartment buildings is covered as a viable war action. Right?

No, not anymore than bombing infrastructure crucial to the health of civilians, which led to the deaths of 100,000 civilians in the Gulf War.


Really? Is that why we forced those little bastards to vote? Led them at gunpoint to elect a government that has recently asked us to leave 2 years ahead of what our current administration was asking for? My, we are getting soft. We said choose what ever form of government you want, as long as the people of Iraq are the ones choosing. They did not have to accept our form of government, they just had to convince the populous to vote for or against people and policies through verbal communication. Not by threats of violence or actual violence. Your right. We are scum.

Originally Posted by catawba

So in other words, whoever takes up arms to defend their country from our occupation are terrorists???

Originally Posted by catawba

We had no right to invade and occupy a sovereign nation and kill all that opposed us.

Originally Posted by catawba

Is this what you call a free election? If it was a free election, it would have been carried out by the Iraqis without our military support.

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by colourislast

Okay, bare bones in Iraq. We ARE there. So without going into the histrionics about whether or not we should be there (because we have come to the point where we should agree to disagree) we need to look at where and how to move forward. I will ask these questions.

If the U.S. and Iraqi government forces laid down their weapons, would the fighting stop and would the country be better off?

Your questions seems a bit unrealistic don't your think? No, the country will only be better off when we leave them alone to determine their own destiny, just as we did during our civil war.


If the forces fighting against the U.S. and Iraqi government forces laid down their weapons, would the fighting stop and would the country be better off?

Your second question is just as unrealistic as your first. The answer is to simply leave as we did in our equally idiotic war with Vietnam.


Of those two scenarios, which would benefit the country, region and world the most?

Originally Posted by Anikdote

That and if we do leave a better Iraq then his pet topic will disapear.