OCCOM BILL wrote:joefromchicago wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:That's just it, Joe. They don't. They have more in common with organized crime than they do an actual military. No central command, no code of ethics, no uniforms, etc. They don't look, walk or quack like ducks.
If you're genuinely serious that there is no war going on in Iraq right now, then I suppose there's no enemy either. After all, we don't call common criminals "the enemy," do we? And if there's no war and no enemy, then there can be no such thing as "treason" in this affair. So you'd agree, then, that an American who aided and abetted Iraqi insurgents would not be guilty of treason, correct?
Pretty tricky, eh? That's the dilemma that the "War on Terrorism" has created. Aren't our legal-eagles trying to work out the details as we speak?
Do you disagree that Saddam's Iraq is gone for good? Even if we pulled out today, our defeated foe would not be the one doing the victory dance.
Today we are fighting heavily armed, very determined extremists who are struggling to fill the power void left by the
defeat of our enemy. They do not represent Saddam's Iraq. This more closely resembles a civil war. In this new struggle, we are allied with the new Iraq against would-be conquerors. While there is still war, it is not the same war... as the first was already irrevocably decided.
Do you disagree that Saddam's Iraq is gone for good?
joefromchicago wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Joe, that's exactly what we're trying to do. If those pesky insurgents would just get out of the way, we'd be well on our way to having done it.
How do you suggest we deal with the misguided fools who are murdering the very people attempting to carry out your noble wishes?
Why do you call them "misguided?" Aren't they Iraqi patriots acting patriotically?
From their perspective I'm sure they are Iraqi Patriots acting patriotically. That is precisely why I call them misguided.
I believe history will reflect that their fight was against the best interests of Iraq.
I agree with you up to here, O'Bill; and joefromchicago, I am aghast
at your definition of patriotism- not including sacrifice for one's country!!! Who was it, drew'sdad
who said something about winning requiring a look forward 10 years to a new sort of Iraq with a stable democratic government...? I would define that as a winning scenario for Iraq. But at this point, we are no longer fighting a war ON Iraq: we got Saddam, and it'll never be that particular despot in power again, although there is still a chance of another despot... I think we WON the war there AND SHOULD GET OUT, but our gov't has other plans... and the way we should have changed the scenario was by casting our votes last November, and we all did, and the majority favored Bush...
Game over, ballot's win out, bullets reign in Iraq, and a true american patriot MUST SUPPORT the gov't's actions, WHETHER THEY LIKE 'EM OR NOT. Perhaps our gov't has a bigger plan, one we aren't all privy to, where there is a future with us thinking our way out of the problem rather than shooting our way out... but first there needs to be a democratic working gov't in Iraq, and therefore we need to see through the voting process and see the majority able to govern their nation... perhaps leading to some end such as them our security partner in the region...? Perhaps enforcing our imperialsit power over other countries in that region...? (I honestly don't know, am just speculating here...) But needed to weigh in that a true patriot WOULD SUPPORT the actions of their gov't while actively working to change the gov't through the process of voting for change. Jmo, fwiw.
