break.com/index/startswiththekids.html |
|
Here is the problem I have always had with this. We go to war in Iraq/Afganistan to kill terrorists and protect the "innocent" civilians. After all we can't kill the farmers, women, and children. They don't fight back. Now imagine America gets invaded by a civil and fair enemy and all the ARFCOM members (insurgents) and military (Royal guard) are targets. Do you really think all the sheeple in America that don't fight back still like the enemy? I'm sure they would say that they do to live a little longer until you go away to find more insurgents(like villagers). Eventually the sheeple would have children that will become.......ARFCOM members or military that want to protect their country. It is bad to say but it is true. Some of these kids have probably been fed by US soldiers. |
|
I think the word "Insurgent" is WAY WAY over used in Iraq. I think it's just a PC way of saying "resistance fighter" There's little evidence, if any, showing that they come from another country. My opinion, is that they are just a bunch of Iraqi "Hoods" shooting at the "Occupyers" of their country. It doesn't make them any better, but seems to make more sense than calling them "Insurgents" It's like trying to say the guys in neigboring countries are more patriotic to Iraq than the Iraqis.  Many of these folks are simple-minded, and don't understand the bigger picture, and why we're there. They just see guys in US uniforms shooting "their" people in "their" country. I really think it's as simple as that.  Again, just my honest opinion. |