During every combat campaign there is always resistance movement. I would say resistance is inevitible. Wikipedia has a list of no less then 30 resistances during WWII. Matter of fact, I believe there is a movie scheduled for release concerning the Jewish Resistance during WWII. Heroes of their time. They would do sneak attacks on the military. Setting bombs, sniping, etc. Looking at the American Revolution. Combatants that took the "rules of war" of that time and turned it on it's head. Look at the movie Braveheart (don't know anything about the history of this period, but bear with me). We cheer on William Wallace against the Longshanks. Against the tyranny. What about the story of Robin Hood. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Do you not cheer him and his band of Merry men on, too?

Every single one of these people, by todays standards can be viewed as terrorists. Our for fathers can be viewed as terrorists. Now, of course, the history books are indeed written by the victors and as such these individuals are heroes. But what makes our view of our past and the past of so many other resistances different from what is happening in Iraq? We all saw Red Dawn. Would you not pick up that rifle and fight back if the United States was invaded by another country? Would you not use guerrilla tactics to defend your homeland, family and friends? Yes, I believe they have warped sensibilities in Iraq and I do not support their cause. But before I cast my stone, I take stock of who I am and what I would do if my way of life is threatened.

 

So you don't support the war...

 

Who really does at this point? Of course we all support our troops, but that does not mean everyone supports the cause.

 

The goals of war are for many things such as regime changes, wealth redispersment, religion, simple land grabs, or other idealogical reasons. The outcome will affect differnt social classes different ways.

If we were attacked by CANADA, and if I were part of the inner city down trodden masses with very little hope for a change in my socioeconmic status then no, I would not fight for the U.S. I would view it as a welcome change because I had nothing to lose.

If I were part of the upper middle classes with wealth and status to lose, then yes, I would love to kill a few canooks.

The funny part about war is that the poor usually fight to defend what the rich have.

What I dislike about this war is that it hasn't lowered the price of oil. Our presence in the middle east has stabilized the region. A stable middle east allows them to stay organized and keep their war with the infidels on track. What we need is to get out of Iraq and let Iran take over and then threaten Saudi Arabia (our true enemy).

 

Well said. Bravo

 

Thanks for stating the facts. I was being sarcastic.

 

To be quite honest, my support for or against the war is inconsequental.

What does get under my skin is the handling of the war. I don't feel we had enough troops in the beginning of the war. Sure we had enough troops to overthrow the military, but we did not have enough to secure peace. To prevent the looting. We didn't have a enough troops to make sure that Iraqis lives weren't impacted as much as it has been or to secure the borders. I mean come on....Sid Meier got it right in his computer game Civilization. You have to have enough troops in the city to maintain order until things can reach a normal equilibrium and win the "hearts and minds". Instead, we did the war as cheaply as possible which in the end is costing more lives and money and overall making the whole situation a lot worse then it should have been.

I feel that if we went into this war for the purpose of "acquire" access to their oil, then we definitely went in for the wrong reason. The only reason we should be in their is to make people's lives better. The only question is: what right do we have to say that our view point is "better" for someone else.

 

exactly what i was thinkin myself. oh, and id fight, just for ****s and giggles really. and the fact that i dont wanna have to wear a turbin

 

One of these helps for decryption...

/sarcasm

 

You can’t support the troops and not the war. Not supporting the war is saying that the troops are being injured or dieing for nothing. If asked, the majority of soldiers agree that they are doing good. They are liberators and protectors, not conquers. I’ve heard that George W. is a mass murder. He hasn’t killed anyone, the soldiers are the ones who do the killing and most of them have rules of engagement that prohibit them from initiating attacks. We are one of the few countries who go outside its borders to protect itself. With that said, wars are also fought for natural resources. The soldiers are not only protecting American lives but American lifestyles.