English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Look at the Insurgents. Just look at them. They are only a rag tag group of people but they are kicking the United States rear end everyday. We are so powerful and they are so weak but they have a good reason to fight the USA. ( What would you do if tanks from another country rolled down your streets? ) The Rag Tag insurgents are taking on the USA and are hurting/killing the troops who fight for Bush and his ideas. Soon my nephew will be over there fighting for Mr Bush and his illegal war. ( He is out of Boot camp 2nd week of Oct ) If my nephew dies at least I tried to tell him the truth.

2006-09-26 08:28:31 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=9-2006

2006-09-26 08:38:10 · update #1

28 answers

I don't admire them. I admire our troops. But i don't admire the wars. And i certainly don't admire Bush.

JBean B, this asker is not misinformed. You are. Did you read the recent CIA reports that explain that the wars are creating more terrorists and making us less safe?

2006-09-26 08:40:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

No, not a little bit. In fact I think they are not very intelligent. They are manipulated daily by people who in the end are only interested in money and power. And they - the insurgents themselves don't even see that. In fact they act a bit like mercenaries.

Furthermore - they kill and destroy innocents, civilians. This is really bad and stupid.

So - those are the most awful creatures. Having no moral and no conscious and being stupid enough to believe they are doing something rigth.

More important - they do not fight against Bush or his ideas. I hope you do not even think that really. They don't even know a lot about Bush or his ideas. They are getting pieces and snippets but from their superiors, the ones who pay for all that, who have different goals. To gain the power of the region and get the oil money. Not much different perhaps from Bush's goals (Oil and influence over the region).

If they would really want to get rid of the US troops then they would just be nice and quiet and the troops would have withdrawn already. Don't you think?
But the US troops in the region there are a very good "marketing" tool for the enemies of the US. And they make heavy use of that. And they fuel that regularly. They really do not want to have the US troops leave. You see - this is a real dirty game there.

It is unfortunate that soldiers in whatever army (insurgents or US army or whatever) are always the ones who bite the dust. It is never the ones high above who suffer.
I am sorry for your nephew. But if this is what he had chosen then this is his decision. He is brave and admirable. And he has his reasons.

And you should feel at least a little bit ashamed for your question.

2006-09-26 09:22:15 · answer #2 · answered by spaceskating_girl 3 · 0 0

If a group of people have a problem with another group of people, there are places to air grievances, such as the United Nations, the World Court or even through the media. There is no excuse for anyone to blow up innocent men, women and children who have done no wrong and have no power to change things. The insurgents, of whom you speak, are for the most part either foreign fighters in Iraq or members of the Baath Party that was in control of Iraq under Saddam Husein. They were part of a reign of terror. There are mass graves and the testamony of thousands of people who endured the excesses of the regime. Those insurgents and suicide bombers have killed and maimed more Muslims than coalition forces. What may have started out as a political force has beome a death cult. They want to eliminate their enemies, including the people of Europe and the United States, by any means possible.

Your use of the term, "illegal war" comes right out of somebody's political talking points, but is not founded in truth. If you go back and check your facts you will see that Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire signed by Saddam Husein at the end of the first Gulf War. That violation was met with sanctions and resolutions by the United Nations. The United States did not just invade, they went through a long and difficult process of making their case diplomatically to the UN.

Would it have been responsible for the world to stand by and allow the rapes, murders and torture go on, or for the world ignore the fact that the regime in Iraq was paying families of suicide bombers in other countries?

We may not be conducting the perfect war. There may be no such thing. It could be an impossible goal, but our country is making a very big effort. Your nephew deserves your support, not your criticism. If he can bring peace to the Middle East, he will worthy of the name, "Hero."

History will judge the parties to this conflict.

2006-09-26 08:56:15 · answer #3 · answered by Suzianne 7 · 0 0

(1) You seem to regard the insurgency as a monolithic group, along the lines of the VC. It isn't.

(2) You have evidently never set foot there or actually looked at the wealth of data from either Afghanistan or Iraq on both the composition of various insurgent groups and their motivations. As such, you cannot differentiate between the Badr Corps and some criminal gang specializing in kidnapping for profit. You don't have to be working in some S-2 or G-2 slot to determine who and what the players are. Evidently that sort of work is too hard for you.

(3) The majority of combat over there is actually between the various paramilitaries themselves fighting for gain, or from those who regard the Iraqi military and police as a great impediment on their control of their various personal fiefdoms. While Americans troops are involved, they are nowhere near as heavily engaged as the local nationals, regardless of affiliation. The casualty figures bear witness to this.

(4) No insurgent group has faced an American unit of platoon strength or higher and survived intact, much less victorious. Even with the sort of foreign aid and support some of the insurgent groups receive and the experience and sophistication of some of these armed factions (former Republican Guard, Kurdish peshmerga, etc), those armed groups that do take on the American military do so by resorting to indirect means (IEDs, VBIEDs) than coming out in force.

(5) Most of the various insurgent groups are just criminals freed by Saddam in his infamous amnesty of 2002. There is nothing to admire about cowards. If they fought as the VC fought, there would be something to admire, but the majority are woefully inept in combat. Granted, there are individual fighters whose tenacity is to be respected, but very few are both skilled and resilient. I have yet to be truly, truly impressed by any of the enemy I have faced in the Middle East as worthy foes.

You've done your best to troll for reactions, but all you do is display your own abject ignorance. You certainly do have a high threshold for humiliation, since any normal human being would have died for shame long ago.

2006-09-26 08:44:14 · answer #4 · answered by Nat 5 · 1 0

you are one sick guy. the insurgents kill innocent children and people each day. HOW IS THAT ADMIRABLE? NOT EVEN A LITTLE!!! sure i know bush might not be the brightest bulb on the tree and we went into iraq for God knows what reason. but we now have a responsibility to clean up our mistakes (bush's mistake) and help our troops out. fighting along side with them or supporting them against these sick people who bomb themselves in front of 4 and 5 years olds recieving candy from soldiers.

2006-09-26 08:41:09 · answer #5 · answered by john s 3 · 0 0

I admire the tactics. The British thought we ( the USA ) were a bunch of cowards for using what we call today 'guerrilla warfare' in our revolution. They thought we were despicable since we didn't line up on a battle field and fight them but we had to do what we had to do and we won. The insurgents are using different tactics and they are working. They haven't killed a lot of soldiers or taken any major offenses but they are using everything they have and using it in small attacks just aiming to take out 2-3 US soldiers at a time. They are getting more and more moral support from their own and wearing down the fire in us Americans, its sad but its true, its hard for me to believe that a soldier who is on his 3rd tour and doesn't know when he is going to go home has the same level or morale as he did in 2004. The Art of War. They know it.

2006-09-26 08:44:53 · answer #6 · answered by The Angry Stick Man 6 · 0 1

No erudite I do not admire them, not even a little bit. They are angry over having lost power when Saddam was toppled, the avarage Iraqi on the streets would just love to do nothing more than get on with a pleasant life going to work and fixing up the shack on weekends. It is a small minority who are so violently opposed to US involvement that they blow each other up on a regular basis. Kind of like those morons in LA after the Rodney King trial, burning down their own neighborhoods.
Just out of curiosity do you even read the responses you get or just shoot your mouth off in ways calculated to inflame?

2006-09-26 08:44:39 · answer #7 · answered by medic 5 · 0 0

Sounds to me like you want your nephew to die just to justify your illogical position. Let me clear some things up for you. The insurgents are not kicking our butts they are kicking Iraqis' butts. If anything is stopping us from destroying the insurgents it is not the insurgents, it is the left. You have tied our hands. The media is waging a war against the United States. If we were allowed to fight we would not be losing anyone.

2006-09-26 08:33:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

a million. Inflation 2. Unsustainable debt load 3. Steepening Yield Curve 4. more beneficial expenses of residing 5. a lot less pastime possibilities 6. overseas international locations looks getting lower than pressure - Iran, N. Korea, China 7. Obama claims the debt is unsustainable and keeps to spend we would have done extra ideal. the present administration ought to study from California. this variety of spending only ends up in a unmarried end. anybody will pay for this -- if no longer explicitly, implicitly with the diminished procuring power of the dollar, the more beneficial expenses of residing and the shortcoming of ability to maintain an income. i'd delight in having a lager w/ Obama, yet i don't think of i'd placed him in can charge of my finance branch, no longer to instruct recommend his Presidency. My problem is for my youthful toddlers...i will cope with the swing.

2016-11-24 20:41:02 · answer #9 · answered by hariwon 4 · 0 0

The "insurgents" are legitimate Resistance to illegal foreign occupation. They are morally identical to the Resistance that fought Nazis in WWII.

Only a liar would claim that Americans would not do EXACTLY the same things the Iraqis do if a foreign power invaded America. I know I would...you better believe I'd blow up invaders.

2006-09-26 13:15:40 · answer #10 · answered by manabovetime 3 · 0 0

Yes, I do. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter! I don't condone violence in any scenario but hey, the Americans invaded someone else's country in the most violent way imaginable, so they shouldn't be surprised when the Iraqis and Afghans retaliate in the only way they know how. As usual, though, it's civilians who are suffering the most, that's the tragedy of war. I hope your nephew survives and I hope he also never has to kill an innocent person in cold blood.

2006-09-26 08:41:39 · answer #11 · answered by aussiepom 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers