This better be false

[lada]

Originally posted by Raider179
1) they are already called insurgents
2)If you read the article the insurgents point was "when is the US gonna leave"
3)oh I see your trollin

1. BBC call them insurgenc since start of the  war. While some other media still keen on terrorist. http://www.brokenmasterpieces.com/archives/001088.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159961,00.html
http://news.google.com/news?q=terrorist+Iraq+attack&hl=en&oi=newsr

2. Its not mentioned in article at BBC. Is it ?

3. booooooo booooooo booooooo

[Skydancer]

"the very fact that we automaticaly label people as terrorists is why the insurgency is growing. the hipocracy is unbelievable. americans idolize self-sacrifice. if you dont believe me, watch how they destroy the space ship in "independence day" (kamikazi attack). we must stop seeing this as a black and white war and start understanding the other side. we must let go of our petty pride and accept that iraq will never be an american style democracy, but something uniqe. we must also accept that our enemies believe that the united states is an imperialist nation only looking out for itself and strive to change this view."

A small sane voice amongst the braying voices to the right of the house!

SMIDSY

[GRUNHERZ]

You know SMIDSY is right. In fact, if you think about it we never quite started winning WW2 until we started to understand the Nazi and Imperialist Japanese point of view, began valuing their uniquine political systems and changing their minds regarding our global intentions.  

SMIDSY

[lazs2]

and... isn't that what we are doing in the middle east?  Show me where we are imposing our type of democracy on anyone unless it is that we "force" the governments to hold elections.   They do seem to be well attended tho.

We did try to stay out of all the euro barbarians wars but they brought em to us anyway.... you are right on that.   We did not impose our political system on either country that we crushed either... you are right on that... we never do.  that is what you guys do.

lazs

[lazs2]

because you know "how things really are"??  

How do you negotiate with a cadre of suicide bombers who won't be happy unless they can impose their brand of hateful religious supression on everyone in the world?

lazs

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by lazs2
 Show me where we are imposing our type of democracy on anyone unless it is that we "force" the governments to hold elections.   They do seem to be well attended tho.



lazs

WTF are all those men and women in uniform on the ground over there doing if it isnt enforcing the will of the US??
Checking out new hardware under combat conditions?


Not saying its a bad thing, but you cant deny that is what they are there for.

[lazs2]

hmm...  we are not allowing them to choose their own form of government?  

I guess you would have a case if you are saying that not allowing terrorists to impose their will without an election is us imposing our will.

We are giving the people the right to form their own government.

If the muslim communist party wins the election we will live with it.

lazs

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by FaliFan
You went to war against Afghanistan (as Nash pointed out). How do you wage war on terrorism? Of course you Americans have a way of using the word "war" on almost anything, like "war on drugs", "war on poverty" etc. It is of course meaningless since a war on poverty is impossible. So is a war on terrorism. You can only catch them and deal with them, and as far as I know your DO indeed prosecute the terrorists you catch.

So I guess you're wrong. You and Rove both.

but we didn't invade afganistan with the FBI or the NYPD.  We may have arrested terrorists that we caught but we waged WAR on terror with military might not police.

keep saying it long and loud enough and maybe you can even fool your self.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by FaliFan
Gunslinger, if you had cared to read all the posts since you left you'd notice Grunherz already made your point, and I responded to it.

noted.  I tried to post this last night before bed but my router took a dump

personally I believe I made my point way before that but that's just me.

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by FaliFan
Gibberish.

lmao.. man that was fantastic!!

[Squire]

"hmm... we are not allowing them to choose their own form of government?"

Within limits. It has to be a democratic form of government, thats how it was setup post-Saddam. A representative democracy.

Im not saying thats bad either, but lets not pretend that the US was not instrumental in the design. A religious oligarchy (like Iran) would not have been allowed, nor would a military dictatorship (like N.Korea), or a one party communist state (like China). Of course, it may end up like that in 5 yrs anyways. Who knows.

What did Churchill say, democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the other kinds?...  

...In any case the few muslim-commies are making bombs not campaign signs, that im sure of.

[lazs2]

are you saying that we would not allow a communist party member to be elected if that were the case?

What would we do?   Tell him he didn't really win and have another election till we got the results we wanted?

lazs

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by FaliFan
You went to war against Japan because they attacked you. You went to war against Germany because they declared war on you and attacked you.

Fascism lived on in Spain and South America even into the 1980's.

So no ... you most certainly did not go to war against fascism.

Nah, if you take a close look at American foreign policy we go to war against ideas almost exclusively.  The country in question doesnt matter all that much.  They pose a threat or have brought a threat to fruition and they must be dealt with.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
isn't that what liberals want?  Theropy for understanding terrorists?

No.

[Skydancer]

"What would we do? Tell him he didn't really win and have another election till we got the results we wanted? "

I expect so!