Originally Posted by Spitty

who defended their homeland against an occupying giant with unconventional warfare tactics. These people were celebrated as heroes. By today's standards those patriots would labeled "insurgents"

Originally Posted by GENO

So what are you saying? can you elaborate a little bit more

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

First of all assuming we are speaking of our own fight for independence lets look at a few differences. (1) The British were not an "occupying army" The colonies were the property of Enland and the British troops had a right to be there. (2) I don't recall reading, even in the most liberal of history books, that the patriots were chopping off the heads of anyone that disagreed with them and (3) the American patriots were fighting for the right to less government, fewer rules, more freedoms. I am not sure you can say the same of the Iraqi "freedom fighters"

Originally Posted by GENO

okay now I understand exacly what you mean and I totally agree. American troops are in Iraq for target practice, theres no other reason for them to be there in my opion.

Originally Posted by Spitty

1) True.

2) Unconventional compared to the Red Coats just sending in wave after wave of grunts to take bullets from a more "Guerilla Colonial Militia"

3) Iraq is a civil war, they never asked us to Intervene.

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

Oh boy I'm afraid to ask but...care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

Spitty
I never said we should or should not be in Iraq. I just thought your comparison between the War in Iraq and the War of Independence was a bit weak.

As far as Iraq goes, I never thought we went into Iraq because Saddam was behind 9/11. It was never claimed he was behind 9/11. I did and still do think that Saddam supported terrorist operations and did pose a threat to us from that direction. Furthermore, perhaps in hindsight Saddam never had the "weapons of mass destruction" (man I hate that term, it means anything and nothing) but since even he was claiming he had them I don't think we were wrong in going after them.

I am reluctant to support a troop withdrawal at this point. However, I also think we should either "shit or get off the pot" as my father used to say and either really use that "shock and awe" we were all told about or go ahead and get out. My main objections to leaving are (1) Once again we would have abandoned a fight we probably never should have been in in the first place, leaving the area a shambles and (2) If we pull out we will appear to have given in to the Islamofacist and embolden them even more. Make no mistake, I sincerely believe we are in a cultural war between the East and the West and our very existance depends on how well we keep Muslims from advancing further. Call it a crusades or a holy war if you want because I think that is exactly what we are in the middle of.

Perhaps the best thing for Iraq at this time is to partitition it into Shite, Sunni and Kurd areas.

Be of good cheer.

See how much we can learn from each other when we don't resort to name
calling?