Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Since the terrorists in Iraq
they could resort to the use of terrorism
thereby leading terrorists to rightly believe

This may be arguing semantics, but they’re not terrorists, they’re guerillas. I think it’s important to reserve the word for when it’s appropriate - so it doesn’t loose it’s meaning and power.

Just to be clear: Blowing up a government building during peace time in Oklahoma City to promote your political agenda = terrorism

Killing soldiers who have recently invaded and overthrown your government in an attempt to drive them out of your country = guerilla warfare

I know it’s minor, but throwing the word around desensitizes people to it. I’ve seen this word being used to describe all types of aggresions since the events of Sept.11, 2001 and I don’t want to see such a vivid word loose it’s meaning to the American people.

This may have been a lucky battle for American Soldiers. We may not be so fortunate next time. If we are, it might be a good sign, but for the time being, I would submit the following.

First, if they’re getting organized, somebody is giving out orders. We need to find who it is, and take them out of the picture.

Second, we need to repair the country to the point where the guerillas become an imposition on a peaceful working society, rather than the symbol for a society trying to fight back against a destructive force.

And Third, Give the Baathists some amnesty, conditional on a vetting process which will allow them to return to their old jobs providing they weren’t too chummy with Saddam’s people. Doing this will allow us to drain away some of the less committed of the supporters, and give us the chance to nab some of the worst criminals of the regime if they are so stupid to try and get their old jobs back.

Of the 46 Iraqs killed I just wonder how many were innocent women and children?

I don’t have any trouble calling ‘guerilla soldiers’ terrorists if they blow up pre-existing UN agencies and Red Cross workers as a regular tactic.

I don’t have any trouble calling ‘guerilla soldiers’ terrorists if they blow up pre-existing UN agencies and Red Cross workers as a regular tactic.

Under that definition almost any fighting force including national militaries would then fall into the category of “terrorists”. Was the US military “terrorists” when they dropped A-bombs in Japan? No, they were soldiers.

My point is, fighting against the imposers of the “war on terror” does not automatically make you a terrorist. The people that blew up the WTC were terrorists. Comparing that act of terror, to trying to steal bank notes in Iraq and getting into a massive fire-fight in the process is just inaccurate.

This is a great topic. In my view, guerillas are a self appointed militia whose target is the power structure to be taken down. Soldiers are fighters whose aggression is focused on an identifiable enemy, either in uniform, or identifiable by armed opposition posture and action. The goal of both guerillas and soldiers is to take down a governing regime, whether domestic or foreign.

Terrorists however, are defined by their target. While their goal is to either repress an aggressor or to take down a regime, their target is non-comabatants who support the aggressor or regime. Their goal is to succeed by using the terror in their targeted non-combatants, to pressure the regime or aggressors to back off, change, or fail in their mission.

In Iraq, by these definitions, there are all three types of combatants. And I believe it is crucial for success of our military and nation building role in Iraq, that the leadership carefully and correctly make these distinctions. For without these distinctions, proper and successful tactics, strategy and action will not be possible.

Going back to the original topic, I’ve wondered about the motivations for this attack. The Iraqis have been pretty good at finding weak points and attacking them, not attacking strong points and loosing. This attack doesn’t fit their M.O.

I see two possibilities. First, they got cocky based upon their earlier succesess. Normal human failing.

But a more interesting possibility occurs when you consider what soldiers they were attacking. This was a convoy of soldiers delivering the new Iraqi currency to banks. Perhaps this whole attack was a heist gone very, very wrong. No political implications at all.

As for the military uniforms, from what I’ve seen of file footage, the “uniforms” of the Fedayeen Saddam look a lot like what a well dressed bank robber would wear. Cover the face so you don’t get identified. Strike fear into the hearts of the people you’re robbing so that they won’t fight back. (I doubt there’s a lot of pantyhose available in Iraq.)

If there were innocents hit during the fire fight, I’m sorry. But bad luck (standing next to someone shooting a gun at someone else) is just as fatal in Iraq as it is anywhere else.

From what I have seen, there are three main factions in Iraq. The first is the Coalition troops. The second is guerrilla fighters who are there to get Coalition out as they see them as an occupation force. The third is the Saddam loyalists.

So basically, if we lump people into these three main catagories and go along with past experiences and tactics, it becomes apparent just who is who.

With this it is pretty easy. Poor tactics and fighting face to face basically points to Saddam loyalists.

I would like to make a quick revision to my post. When I state “face to face” like that, it is not meant to be a difference between cowardice and bravery. It more goes to show a certain blindedness and lack of foresight and possibly a lack of grasp of reality.

Saddam Hussein loyalists are not international terrorists that pose a threat to the US. Do we need a review that Saddam and Bin Laden are no the same person? This does not have a damn thing to do with the war on Terrorism.

Jakes point is right on in my opinion. Seems, and I am not alone in this opinion according to many in the media, the occupation of Iraq is generating more growth in the terrorist movement throughout the world than anything we are doing to diminish their numbers.

While I do believe it is this Administration’s intent to fight terrorism, it is only one of two primary goals. The second is to use the terrorists as a justification for growing and spreading our military might thoughout and above the entire world (space). The Chinese see what our agenda is, that is why they are countering with their own militarily oriented space missions with technical assistance from Russia and technological assistance from Japan.

The new MAD policy of the 21st Century has begun and many, many millions of people around the world have taken notice.

David R. Remer has overstated his case about the second aim of the Bush administration. While it may be the policy of the Bush administration to “use the terrorists as a justification for growing and spreading our military might thoughout […] the entire world,” I see no evidence that moving the military into space is at all on their horizon. If space was at all a concern of theirs, wouldn’t they actually spend some money on NASA or some other space program? They’re busy starving it, just like almost every other previous administration.

I could be wrong, but i dont think Star Wars or Magic Space Shield, or whatever the name of the month is, is run by NASA…

Mr. Coulter, it was not my opinion. Please note the following excerpt and link to an article on our military space initiative. “CANBERRA, Australia - Australia has agreed to participate in a U.S. program to build a defensive missile shield, the government announced Thursday.” Please note, no one is about to call it an Offensive Missile System, even if it is. Bad politics don’t you know.

Australia Agrees to Missile Defense Role.

Also, note the following link with information about the stategic distribution of US forces throughout the world - it is an eye opener, with all roads leading to oil or China. The Neo-Imperialists

If we are going to call them terrorists in Iraq, I guess we should re-write American History books and re-name the revolutionaries terrorists…

I would just like to say one thing about a comment above. This comment said that Innocent women and children were being killed. While it is impossible to fight a war without having some casualties, you must realize that coalition forces fight in a manner to minimize those casualties. Also, this war has seen a large precent of precision weapons, or smart bombs. This further minimizes civilian casualties.

I think that the war was somthing we needed to do.