[MB.]

I'm going with Jaakko on this one.

"Tammy"'s comparisons and concepts are weak at best, and moronic at worst. It's horrific what people can believe.

[Monkey Angst]

Tolerant islamism is better than Imperialism. Baathism is better than islamism. Communism is better than Baathism.

Im sure this could be the foundation of a new thread, but where exactly do you get this calculus?

[Macphisto]

If Tammy is so trigger happy, I'd like to stick her little egg head under a helmet, and her comfy columnist ass in some camo, and let HER raize Fallujah. Let HER prove that Americans won't run with their tails between their legs.

"I wonder, as Clinton sits around his office with his cigars, Hillary (or some other woman. It really doesn't matter, does it?) and John Kerry, does he ever wonder what it’s like to be hacked to death with a machete?"

Does Ms. Bruce know what its like to have her house "shocked and awed", only to lose her family and two of her arms like that Iraqi kid?

[The One.]

(why was this post deleted?)

Tolerant islamism is better than Imperialism. Baathism is better than islamism. Communism is better than Baathism. So given that there are only Islamists, Baathists, and Communists fighting in Iraq, any regime they end up with after the American's withdraw is going to be better than the regime they have under the Americans(I'd prefer imperialism over Fascism, but there are no storm troopers in Iraq, just fedayeen and mujahadeen).

What is best for iraqis: American interventionnism

then
In order of shittiness:
1)Communism(crush individual freedoms,only benefits those who can't benefit in life,uncanadian crap)
2)Baathism(fascism)
3)"Tolerant" Islamism(forces women to wear the hijab...)

you're just not explaining your ideas making you a sitting duck for anyone else. What the hell? Baathism better than american intervention??? You just don't know what you're talking about or you are blinded by a fanatical Anti-Americanism. Why wouldn't you want democracy? And please don't gimme this shit about americans exploiting poor little iraqis, that just ain't realistic not to mention unsupported.

Try to imagine yourself holding such views in Saddam's iraq, proning such "systems" like anarchy and such.... Wouldn't that be alittle tiny bit better if you had freedom of speech? I know what youre gonna reply to that but go ahead,reply...for fun.

Cmon admit youre being stupid and irrational here.

The 'contractors' in fallujah where killed by small arms fire, by enemy soldiers with AK-47s and RPGs, not improvised explosives. The five other soldiers killed (in Baghdad) where killed by an improvised explosive device. Just like the Vietcong, they use boobytraps when they can and AK-47's when they can't: why put Resistance fighters at risk if they can avoid it?

That's what I just said...

Btw,did you know that the resistance wasn't even aiming when shooting? (gotta wonder what those iron sights are here for)

The vast majority of attacks are directed against the United States, other occupation soldiers and their armed collaborators. The two well publicized bombing attacks against Shia civilians are isolated attacks carried out by a tiny faction with no general support in the Resistance.

Source?

Go ahead and fill the Resistance's barracks with new recruits.

Then fill in with napalm. Close the door. Let burn for 15 seconds.

Happy easter,youve just cooked yourself a muhadeen meatloaf

Better served by Iraqis.

When you think "private security guard" you might think of mall security guards that failed the exam for their local suburban police academy. These where American special forces, the 'elite' of the American military, supposedly with the most effective combat training in the world. Three Navy SEALs, one Army Ranger. They where carrying assult rifles and side arms in two SUVs. They left their special operation's jobs to kill for money. They ended up getting killed by three Fedayeen with small arms and no vehichals, who escaped with no casualties.

Assault rifles? Rangers?SEALS? Thats your argument for trying to label the americans as evil?

As far as I'm concerned, a ranger could very well do the job of a Seaworld whale trainer and it wouldn't even matter and probably you wouldn't be whining about them being rangers.

Assault rifles...DUH!!! what did you expect? Security contractor going in a country in war-like conditions with M9 pistols?

I perfectly know what a security contractors is, its you that needs to revise your definiton of mercenary,security contractors,and bodyguard.

As far as I can see, its pretty effective. 400 dead Americans and counting. If you told Donald Rumsfeld before the war that 400 American soldiers would die one year after the war he would have laughed at you. Why do you think only 150 000 or so troops took part in the invasion and the occupation - with no specialised peace keeping police? Its because Rumsfeld assumed the Americans would be greeted with rose petals, and the grateful Iraqi people would do all the reconstruction themselves.

Partly.But it was more because rumsfeld believed in a more "Specops" approach.

Can we all say V-I-E-T-N-A-M? As I recall US troops had to destroy villages to save them. The moment they adopted that mentality was the moment they lost the war. The same will happen in Iraq if the US adopts the same attitudes. Don't you guys learn anything? Geeeeeeeez

Then what is your solution?

It was definetly not the US policy toward civilians that lost them.The NVA and Vietcong were far more brutal than US soldiers. Both the NVA and vietcong were mistrusted in Vietnam. The US as well BUT that was because the VC had much more effective propaganda contrarly to the US which provided aid but didn't make any or limited use of propaganda toward the civilian population.

The US lost because it didn't direct its effort toward the good targets and the US engagement in vietnam is a perfect example of policy failure when politics gets too much mixed up in strategic matters:The US was focusing almost exclusively on the South vietnam insurgency, paying almost no attention to the north(yeah, you can mention the major bombardment campaign of north vietnam, but these weren't even targeted at major industrial targets and th eplaces that mattered, if so the US would have won given the large amount of bombs dropped on North Vietnam). But even there it did a bad job.Why? Failure to cut the Ho chi minh trail. Failure to engage the Vietcong in Cambodia and other surrounding countries. So why has the US lost? Failure to take a more agressive stance.

Brutality IS effective. Ask south vietnamese president Diem. Apparently his brutal tactics were so effective that at one point early before the US got engaged 90% of vietcong cells were destroyed.

[QatzelOk]

The One, after reading your last post, I have come to the conclusion you are a 41-year-old liberal. Cheers, mate.