we're kind of dumb when it comes to things like war and fairness.

if we declare war on a country that does not want to go to war with us, then after 3 months, declare the war over. when those people, whom we claim just 'lost' the war, keep fighting, why do we really refer to their fighting as 'terrorism'?

why do we call them 'cowards' because they attack us from busy city areas surrounded by civillians, but don't call it cowardice when we attack them from airplanes, helicopters and tanks? if they stood in the middle of an open field and shot at us with rifles, we would shoot back with rockets. that's not cowardice? we bring nuclear missles to a knife fight, then talk shit when they chose to not simply get blown up. awesome. we're pretty smart.

how come it's ok for us to declare war on a country for no particular concrete reason, but when they then declare war on us (jihad), it's seen (and portrayed) as some signifigant sign of evil.

we're pretty dumb.

none of these ideas are new, but they just popped into my head, and after the board crashed earlier this month, i need to regain my posts.

uhhhhhhh Bob im going to go with Choice -A-... Oil...

History repeats itself...

Iraq is the new vietnam, and our generation of anti-war protesters is the new hippies

this could be a good reason.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html'>

Re: this could be a good reason.

Originally posted by hotshot

http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html'>

sorry, check out www.bushorchimp.com:lol:

Originally posted by seeking

i need to regain my posts.

I wouldnt worry too much if I were you.

History class used to always talk about the Boer war as one of the first examples of 'guerilla fighting' in modern history. The Boers would hide in trees and ditches and just take shots at the rows of 'organized' troops. Seems like that's the smart thing to do when your home and family are on the line. People called the boers 'savages' and said that they were 'ignoring the rules of engagement' because they would fight by any means necessary.

Well it seems now that 'By any means' it more routine than ever. Look at napalm or land mines. Seems like a dishonarable way to kill someone. Early in the first world war it was normal for both sides to say 'Time Out' so that the brits could enjoy a peacefull cup of tea and the germans could stretch their legs. Then an hour later they'd go back to shooting at each other. War seemed so very civilized no?

back to seeking's point,

There's a huge difference between 'terrorist' and 'guerilla'. Is a kid in a head scarf throwing a rock at a tank a 'terrorist'? I say no. Bush on the other hand seems to think that any group of fighters that cant afford it's own battleship is a terrorist group. Obviously there's something more to be 'won' here than just the freedom for the Iraqi people.

side note:

You know that 'rebel cleric' that CNN keeps talking about? Well imagine if the US actually talked to him before all this. He was anti-saddam and was all about turning power over to the iraqi people, but the US didnt listen to his sugestions and then started fucking things up royally. Now he's pissed and he hates our guts. Bush needs to know when to make friends before they become enemies. riiiiiiight that will ever happen.

the US is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. I swear. Do people forget how we got this country? The indians were considered savages because they wouldn't stand in a line and shoot at us like the Brits. We of course adopted this "new" style of warfare and employed it against the British. I'm sure the Brits considered us "terrorists" or possibly "savages" back in the day. How quickly we forget. The muslims are doing the exact same thing we did when we were attacked by a more powerful nation. They used all possible effective means. For us it meant hiding in the woods and taking pot-shots. For the muslims...its suicide bombers and street fighting.

we can dish it out...but can't take it.

he made a distinction the other night between islamic militants and terrorists...

i didnt really understand his point.

we declared war on terrorism. not a country.

but this story changes hourly.

that cleric al-sadr comes from a long line of martyred clerics. His father was killed in 1994 for speaking out against sadam

Al-sadr is jsut trying to follow in the family footsteps.

the only real vietnam camparison i see is the fact that america seems to think a fair one is us against them on the battlefeild, which obiously leaves us as the victor, since no other country has our robust military.

However in a life and death fight i challenge anyone to stick with a loosing format, for the sake of following the "rules" of war. In war the object is to win. That means taking every advantage you have, be it jungle hiding, or city hiding, hit and run style fighting.

I dont like the idea, but i know its a reality. A lesson i learned as a young knucklehead is this: I was always worried about fighting someone i was sure i could beat, because knowing you can loose gives you that much more resolve to get some good shots in early. So me thinking this is a boxing match with rules quickly turns into my nuts getting kicked while i attempt to square off.

Neverending war = good?

How the hell can you declare war on terror and actually make people believe it can be won?

How the fuck can you declare war on an emotion?

So confusing...

As of today I am declaring war on luck, and I'm going to need your support on this.

the suicide bomber kills in person and is calleda murderer and a coward, the liberator kills from great distances and is called a hero and a freedom fighter.

thats so not radical

Re: Neverending war = good?

Originally posted by Æ°

As of today I am declaring war on luck, and I'm going to need your support on this.

'love' declared war on me back in '95... so far, i'm still getting the shit kicked out of me.

seekings shit locks must be coming in again.....

im thinkng about taking a truck driving job for halliburton and going over there and stacking cheddar. plus i'll be armed and free to buck all i want...

hesh, that's one of the bets ideas you've ever had..

you do a pretty good job of representing an american.

haha.

i was thinking the other day about how i'd like to go over there and work. i'd rather it not be for halliburton, but i would like the experience of seeing the country while all of this is going on.

i'm already working towards eventually getting a job in afghanistan.

hesh,

before you start calling me a hippy, let us remember which one of us owns machine guns, and which one of us owns NO guns.

seeks/thanks for playing

i could care less.......

and seeks its just my way of saying "love you nig"

haha, i know homie, i know.

seeks/my guns is your guns

d-block, two guns up

it's the exact same effect as when you're a little kid playing video games with a friend and use of a certain character is "cheap" because it is effective against you and you're having a hard time problem solving.

sore losers

The object in war is to win

The only thing that annoys me about Iraq is that they did not send enough troops to do the job the first time around. I suppose that declaring a cease fire to allow the civilians in Fallujah to go out and get water and food and allow people to bury the dead is not "civilized?" Get serious. I said in another post that I thought the Marines would level much of the city. I think they are proceding with great restraint. Personally, I think they ought to completely surround Fallujah with dug in troops and barbed wire and then FLATTEN the fucking place. If I was a civilian in Fallujah, I'd be pretty pissed off at the "guerrillas." Stupid fascist assholes. If they'd just cooperate, we'd give them a modern democratic country on a platter, but noooo, everybody wants to be Lenin.

no, everyone wants the freedom to have their voice heard.

didn't this whole thing start over us censoring a newspaper?

so much for democracy on a platter.

last night on tough crowd colin quinn akined the fallujah people to "bloods and crips / people of color"

haha

Originally posted by heavyLox

However in a life and death fight i challenge anyone to stick with a loosing format, for the sake of following the "rules" of war. In war the object is to win. That means taking every advantage you have, be it jungle hiding, or city hiding, hit and run style fighting.

thus the old phrase "alls fair in love and war"

i travel with a pocket of sand.

hev- sand to eye- foot to shin- bounce like a theif in the night. If worse comes to worse ill (paper) cut'chu wif my metro card, whut? mujahadeen, usmc, yall dont want none from hev...

Originally posted by seeking

didn't this whole thing start over us censoring a newspaper?

so much for democracy on a platter.

we didn't censor it exactly, we shut it the fuck down.

we claimed it was because the paper was inciting violence

although it wasn't exactly, it was just highly critical of the occupation.

yeah, only the u.s. is entitled to a special brand of democracy that includes freedom of the press and right to a fair trial..

everyone else in the world just gets bombed and better like it.

my uzi weighs a ton.

freedom of press does not include the right to incite violence. Which is what the paper was doing.

You guys really should read more. Like the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and a book by Thomas Paine called Common Sense. Sad how ill informed most of the people in this thread are. Not just about Iraq but about their own country. For god sakes most of you probably think we live in a democracy. We never have, and never were intended to be a democracy. Nor is Iraq. We are a Federal Republic with a tradition of democratic thinking (not the party).

Originally posted by pez roc

freedom of press does not include the right to incite violence. Which is what the paper was doing.

people will always challenge their 'first amendment rights' when it come to news coverage. Luckily most of the time judges will put a publication ban on things that would insite violence or have the potential to harm someone. They dont name informants and they dont give out the names of rape victims. Does a reporter have the right to put these people into danger? I say no. Do reporters have the right to tell about underhanded politicians and dirty cops? I sure hope they do.

Originally posted by pez roc

You guys really should read more... Sad how ill informed most of the people in this thread are.

Welcome to the world of getting your ass handed back soon.